Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Theodicy


sojourner

Recommended Posts

The multi-dimensional sets really comes in only when you have complex number sets of the type a+bi (where a and b are integers and i2=-1) It's how Fermat's Last Theorem was solved.

Really? Okay. Since I haven't seen this before, I guess you're right. They did however include four or five different set dimensions in their example, and time was one of them, and location one.

 

Somehow I kind of saw it just like how you handle tables in a database. For instance a schedule would be a perfect example of multidimensional sets. Location is one set. Date and Time is one set. Participants one set. And they all congregate in an event; a relational object that tie them together. After all, sets are based on data samples.

 

Basically, in simple sets such as the type we're manipulating, invoking mutli-dimensional sets is a little like using a Cray to calculate the two times table... it's doable, not not sensible. A bit like invoking f(T) over the sets E and O...

Well. I think I see it in a different angle, but I can't explain it better than I have.

 

I tried to find any online resources that explains the multidim sets, but can't find any. If you find something, let me know.

 

edit:

 

So Wiles used multidim sets to prove the Fermats? I didn't know that. Interesting. I wonder if Fermat himself had these things in mind (intuitively) when he claimed to have the proof...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 198
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • justsomeone

    49

  • Grandpa Harley

    45

  • Ouroboros

    38

  • Neon Genesis

    15

It confuses me too. What is the difference between creating evil and creating a creature capable of evil? I think there is a verse in Isaiah that says God creates evil. That I can understand. But all-loving? No way.

And add to this that the Bible say that God hates evil and sin, and I can only assume he hates the Devil, and Jesus commands the Christians (or was it only the Jews) to hate their parents. Or was this just colorful language to be interpreted as "loving less"? Is then "loving less" the opposite of "love"?

 

edit:

 

I forgot, the Bible also say:

Mal 1:3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."

 

Ro 9:13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

The word for hated in both verses are really hate of the first degree. Not "love less" or "dislike" or "just feeling a little bit upset about", but real, hate. So God can hate human beings too. So how the HELL HECK can Christians claim God is all and only love??? (oops, sorry for my language. Colosseum rules.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, draw it... use colours for the dimensions... I'm not really following the logic...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, draw it... use colours for the dimensions... I'm not really following the logic...

I guess what you really get is combined sets, so complex numbers makes some sense.

 

I'll see if I can produce something graphical to illustrate my thought about it later. But I can of course I be completely wrong in how I interpreted the whole thing.

 

But until then, just an example:

 

Bob, Pete and Gloria are three individuals part of a set called Citizens. The set Citizens © contains more than just these three individuals.

 

There's a couple of locations they could meet at in the Village. These locations then are subsets of the superset the Village (L for location).

 

They could have met at one (or more) of these locations at one (or more) times during the time frame of last week (Monday to Friday - a work week (W)).

 

There are different combinations of these meetings, and other Citizens could have been involved. If we make a network of all C, where they were, what location in V, at what time during the week. We can see intersections in more planes than just if Bob and Pete have been to the same pub at some time, but also see if they went to the same pub at the same time, and if Gloria also were there.

 

In a normalized database you would create tables to represent all this, and load all the sample data. And you could query for the combinations of the subsets that overlap.

 

The tables would be something like:

 

Citizen ( ID, Name )

Location ( ID, Name, Zone, Address etc...)

Time ( ID, Date, Hour, Minute - depends on how deep resolution you want )

 

And then you would have the relational objects:

Citizen_Location_Time or Event ( Citizen_ID, Location_ID, Time_ID )

 

From this you can cross query all these three dimensions, and yet each one of them is a set of data.

 

(Sorry, I'm more familiar with database theory than set theory, even though they overlap a lot on the abstraction level, so it's easier for me to explain it this way.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is set theory... thus more than half of it's faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is set theory... thus more than half of it's faith.

I did some searching (no, not soul searching, but web searching :) ) and found there are different axiomatic systems to describe the set theory. Or in other words: different set theories! I had no idea! One of them, some Russian dude some while back, made a set theory that didn't have infinite sets?! What the... Is it only the standard set theory that is considered the foundation for math, or can any one of these be used? Now I'm confused, and I can understand why you don't like it very much!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not Lobochevsky?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ro 9:13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. The word for hated in both verses are really hate of the first degree. Not "love less" or "dislike" or "just feeling a little bit upset about", but real, hate. So God can hate human beings too. So how the HELL HECK can Christians claim God is all and only love??? (oops, sorry for my language. Colosseum rules.)

 

Hey Hans, that math stuff is still blowing my mind. Come on, are you guys making this stuff up as you go? It's amazing to me to think this kind of 'intelligence' is out there.

 

Now as to the 'Jacob I love, Esau I hate' item, I wish you could see how I have come to terms with this and like statements.

 

I see man as a carnal creature which supposedly is not real good. I see man as also a spiritual or divine being also. If what I see is true then the 'Jacob' "God loves" is the divine essence while the 'Esau' "God hates" is the carnal that will be disposed of in due time.

 

I see this because in Romans it also says that out of the same lump God makes a vessel of honor and a vessel of dishonor. Notice 'out of the same lump'.

 

Notice too that it says God makes............. 'dishonor'. If God is making 'dishonor' then there is much more to God than any fundy person I know knows.

 

I wish I could put this in mathematical language and I will work on that but I can't now. This is not fundy stuff. No fundy I know believes this as I see it.

 

I won't say more unless you see something here. You seem more discerning than I and I mean this. It would help me to no end if you think you could make any sense out of what I just said in relation to what you know.

 

PS I too very much agree that the word hate is hate of the first degree.

 

I also think that 'God' and evil are very much connected in the whole scheme of things as I think I am seeing even in your and Gramps math formulas.

 

js

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish you could see how I have come to terms with this and like statements.

 

Been there! Done that! Do you really not understand that most of us did these twisted mental gymnastics as Xians as well?

 

I see man as a carnal creature which supposedly is not real good.

 

You and every other Xian.

 

the 'Esau' "God hates" is the carnal that will be disposed of in due time.

 

Then why the hell would he have purposely made it to fall and be disposed of? Why bother???

 

out of the same lump God makes a vessel of honor and a vessel of dishonor

 

Yes, we're all non-sentient lumps of clay to God. Out of the melting pot of humanity God shits in some (that's what a dishonorable pot was) and honors others.

 

Notice too that it says God makes............. 'dishonor'.

 

The term "shit happens" sums up life much tidier than God running it like clockwork.

 

This is not fundy stuff. No fundy I know believes this as I see it.

 

Oh, they do so. You're just decorating the same shit with prettier paper and ribbons.

 

I also think that 'God' and evil are very much connected in the whole scheme of things

 

Take the spiritual beings out of it and you get life with the human element mixed in. That's reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why the hell would he have purposely made it to fall and be disposed of? Why bother???

I know there is no answer or comment that I can give you that you would say you have not heard of or would even consider so I will not anger you by trying.

 

js

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, draw it... use colours for the dimensions... I'm not really following the logic...

I guess what you really get is combined sets, so complex numbers makes some sense.

 

I'll see if I can produce something graphical to illustrate my thought about it later. But I can of course I be completely wrong in how I interpreted the whole thing.

 

But until then, just an example:

 

Bob, Pete and Gloria are three individuals part of a set called Citizens. The set Citizens © contains more than just these three individuals.

 

There's a couple of locations they could meet at in the Village. These locations then are subsets of the superset the Village (L for location).

 

They could have met at one (or more) of these locations at one (or more) times during the time frame of last week (Monday to Friday - a work week (W)).

 

There are different combinations of these meetings, and other Citizens could have been involved. If we make a network of all C, where they were, what location in V, at what time during the week. We can see intersections in more planes than just if Bob and Pete have been to the same pub at some time, but also see if they went to the same pub at the same time, and if Gloria also were there.

 

In a normalized database you would create tables to represent all this, and load all the sample data. And you could query for the combinations of the subsets that overlap.

 

The tables would be something like:

 

Citizen ( ID, Name )

Location ( ID, Name, Zone, Address etc...)

Time ( ID, Date, Hour, Minute - depends on how deep resolution you want )

 

And then you would have the relational objects:

Citizen_Location_Time or Event ( Citizen_ID, Location_ID, Time_ID )

 

From this you can cross query all these three dimensions, and yet each one of them is a set of data.

 

(Sorry, I'm more familiar with database theory than set theory, even though they overlap a lot on the abstraction level, so it's easier for me to explain it this way.)

 

Yes, and all three are phyisical. The time just fixes the locus of the physical meeting. You've yet to establish how a state of mind can equate to an object. I do understand Tuple form (up to 4th normal, but anything higher is pointless) and BNF for lexical constructs. So, have at it old bean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think that 'God' and evil are very much connected in the whole scheme of things as I think I am seeing even in your and Gramps math formulas.

 

Pardon me if I say that I find your posts to be exceedingly vague on what you think are the attributes of God. I have asked you before what you think they are and you didn't answer.

 

So does the above statement mean that God is the origin or creator of evil?

 

Do you mean that humans are a combination of the divine and evil and so is God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there is no answer or comment that I can give you that you would say you have not heard of or would even consider so I will not anger you by trying.

 

You're probably right. I've only heard one other concept of faith that was even remotely different in the last year. It was well thought out and "worked" so to speak, but definitely wouldn't be anything you could call "Christianity"...

 

Of course, I know nothing of Anglican, Lutheran, or Catholic faiths. I've heard that the Anglicans can be pretty liberal in their thinking.

 

The charismatic/evangelical end of things I know inside out and upside down.

 

However, if one thinks the premise is bullshit then the wrapping doesn't change the contents.

 

...still, it pisses me off that you think it would have angered me...

 

...

 

...

 

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Hans, that math stuff is still blowing my mind. Come on, are you guys making this stuff up as you go? It's amazing to me to think this kind of 'intelligence' is out there.

Actually, no, we're not making it up. We're barely scratching the surface of what math can do. I'm far from being skilled or fully knowledgeable in this subject. I just know some pieces here and there.

 

Now as to the 'Jacob I love, Esau I hate' item, I wish you could see how I have come to terms with this and like statements.

 

I see man as a carnal creature which supposedly is not real good. I see man as also a spiritual or divine being also. If what I see is true then the 'Jacob' "God loves" is the divine essence while the 'Esau' "God hates" is the carnal that will be disposed of in due time.

So what part does "so he loved the world that he ..." refer to? The carnal, the spiritual, or just the world itself? When will you start having the feeling that you're the one that have to make up stuff as you go, just to make the Bible fit reality? ;)

 

It did strike me after I posted earlier, even though I didn't write anything, but consider that God willingly killed most humans in the flood (supposedly), and again and again he killed people for minor things. He also made bets with Satan. He lied, and he claims to hate things, and have anger issues, and much, much more. Now, could one consider that when it says that God loved the world, it is referring to the world as a whole, the universe, biological life etc, and not humans per se? Maybe (in a fictional world) God is not out to save humanity, but know how to use necessary myths, just to create conflicts and religious wars so we one day end up destroying ourselves, and he can get back his Eden? (without humans) Maybe that's the truth of the story?

 

I see this because in Romans it also says that out of the same lump God makes a vessel of honor and a vessel of dishonor. Notice 'out of the same lump'.

 

Notice too that it says God makes............. 'dishonor'. If God is making 'dishonor' then there is much more to God than any fundy person I know knows.

 

I wish I could put this in mathematical language and I will work on that but I can't now. This is not fundy stuff. No fundy I know believes this as I see it.

 

I won't say more unless you see something here. You seem more discerning than I and I mean this. It would help me to no end if you think you could make any sense out of what I just said in relation to what you know.

You see the problem with the Bible is that it contains different and contradictory theologies, and at some point one has to understand that the book represents different views that sometimes can't be synchronized, but have to be accepted as opinions by people who didn't know much more than we do about what is "out there".

 

PS I too very much agree that the word hate is hate of the first degree.

 

I also think that 'God' and evil are very much connected in the whole scheme of things as I think I am seeing even in your and Gramps math formulas.

Correct. If God is everything, the God has to be good and evil, loving and hating. Yin and Yang. God is Dao (or Tao if you prefer that spelling).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and all three are phyisical. The time just fixes the locus of the physical meeting. You've yet to establish how a state of mind can equate to an object.

My bad, I didn't mean that state of mind equates to an object, but there are relationships between them.

 

I do understand Tuple form (up to 4th normal, but anything higher is pointless) and BNF for lexical constructs. So, have at it old bean

I hope I don't have to do Baccus, lets not get into linguistics. :HaHa:

 

But Tuples would work in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And add to this that the Bible say that God hates evil and sin, and I can only assume he hates the Devil, and Jesus commands the Christians (or was it only the Jews) to hate their parents. Or was this just colorful language to be interpreted as "loving less"? Is then "loving less" the opposite of "love"?

 

edit:

 

I forgot, the Bible also say:

Mal 1:3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."

 

Ro 9:13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

The word for hated in both verses are really hate of the first degree. Not "love less" or "dislike" or "just feeling a little bit upset about", but real, hate. So God can hate human beings too. So how the HELL HECK can Christians claim God is all and only love??? (oops, sorry for my language. Colosseum rules.)

Even if one accepts the apologist arguments that Jesus really means we're supposed to put God first when he says to hate your parents because Jesus speaks metaphorically or whatever their excuse is, if God was all-knowing like Christians claim, why didn't he use his all-knowing powers to realize ahead of time that we would have such difficulty understanding the meaning of that verse and make his meaning clearer for us to understand? And if Jesus is speaking metaphorically, why is it that that's the only time we have such difficulty understanding Jesus' metaphors? When Jesus said that we must be born again, he explained the metaphor in that verse to us to mean that he really meant baptism, so why didn't he explain the metaphor in the verse about hating your parents if it's a metaphor? And I always hated the story of Jacob and Esau because Christians would always bash Esau as being "carnally-minded" or whatever that means, but Jacob apparently gets a clean slate even though he's the one who decieved Esau into selling his birth right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, most relational database theory is just set theory... just a different notational standard...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, most relational database theory is just set theory... just a different notational standard...

True. In a general sense. It is less hypothetical and fortunately you never have to deal with paradoxes caused by infinite sets. :) No hotel paradoxes to deal with.

 

But I do work with intersections, unions, cartesian products on a daily bases, but it has different names, and as you say a different notation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not strictly true... how many elements in a repeating group?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think that 'God' and evil are very much connected in the whole scheme of things as I think I am seeing even in your and Gramps math formulas.

 

Pardon me if I say that I find your posts to be exceedingly vague on what you think are the attributes of God. I have asked you before what you think they are and you didn't answer.

 

So does the above statement mean that God is the origin or creator of evil?

 

 

I do believe that God is represented in the Bible as the creator of evil. Isaiah 45.7.

 

And am I seeing this in Hans's and Gramp's math writings? I think so.

 

Do you mean that humans are a combination of the divine and evil and so is God?

Yes.

 

js

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...still, it pisses me off that you think it would have angered me...

 

Funny guy!

 

js

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think that 'God' and evil are very much connected in the whole scheme of things as I think I am seeing even in your and Gramps math formulas.

 

Pardon me if I say that I find your posts to be exceedingly vague on what you think are the attributes of God. I have asked you before what you think they are and you didn't answer.

 

So does the above statement mean that God is the origin or creator of evil?

 

 

I do believe that God is represented in the Bible as the creator of evil. Isaiah 45.7.

 

And am I seeing this in Hans's and Gramp's math writings? I think so.

 

Do you mean that humans are a combination of the divine and evil and so is God?

Yes.

 

js

 

OK. Thanks for clearing that up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not strictly true... how many elements in a repeating group?

What do you mean? Are you talking about the BNF, or a table? The table is restricted to two factors, the size of the primary key and the size of the hard disk. Or do you mean recursive references? Theoretically infinite, but in all practicality you don't have an infinite number of records. Or did I misunderstand you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.