Is it?

[Divebomb]

I'm not saying 1 = 0.

I'm saying because the thought process leads to 1=0 that the basis of the thought process itself is flawed.

In other words the concept of division by 0 is realizable, yet impossible. You showed a perfectly acceptable way to reduce mathematics to the impossible.

The concept of an all-powerful God is realizable, yet impossible. Every day people talk about an all-powerful God even though if we were do out the "math of calculating what God is" we find that this math is completely impossible.

When you say "God cannot do something that is not true" you are begging the question. God must exist for him to do something "not true" - which causes the difficulty you are realizing in my argument. But if God does not exist, there is no one to do the impossible, therefore there is no conflict.

I'm aware that last part is not very clear, but it's my best effort.

[disaster]

let x=1

then x^2 = x*1
then x^2 - 1 = x*1 -1
then (x + 1)(x-1) = 1(x-1)
then x + 1 = 1
then x = 0

then 1=x=0, so 1=0

*evil grin*

[Everybody]

I believe what Dive's point is here, Stars, is not that God does not exist, only that our concept of what He may be is flawed. And if you look at his logic, it's correct, and you have to pull in special exceptions, or exemptions or... whatever... to disprove it. But the proof, imo, does not prove His non-existence, only a non-existence in how our (limited) human minds can conceptualize Him. As He is (conceptually) omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and we have no references as to what being any of those three are, our limited understanding breaks down how much of Him can be understood by us.

(all this from a non-believer... how odd...)

[Bluestar]

What were you saying about BR being a no mathzone Kiri? *blink* Don't read the above posts! *blink*

Bluei

[Stars]

As He is (conceptually) omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and we have no references as to what being any of those three are, our limited understanding breaks down how much of Him can be understood by us.

I can agree with that, EB. We can make assertions about God, in the hope of defining Him. But we cannot properly define the words we choose because they are by definition, undefinable. Infinity, for instance, cannot be understood in its entirety because we have no way in which to measure it. A complete description would go on, and on, and on....and on... Because of this, we have to make up words that represent the absolute, like perfect, forever, or all-powerful. And only through a similar word can we describe such a word. However, it is because we know that we cannot fully understand these words that we are able to use them, and use them correctly. What better way to define the undefinable than with an undefinable word?

When you say "God cannot do something that is not true" you are begging the question. God must exist for him to do something "not true" - which causes the difficulty you are realizing in my argument. But if God does not exist, there is no one to do the impossible, therefore there is no conflict.

But the premise of your proof implies that we must assume God exists, at least within the context of your argument. In fact, the whole equation represents God. One side of the equation includes a value for God's qualities. I just threw a "1" in there simply because it has a positive value. On the other side of our hypothetical equation we have a valueless number "0". I must better explain the reason why this equation is wrong.

On the "God's qualities side", we have all the perfect, eternal, Godly words we can think of.

1 = ?

Now, the purpose of your equation is to assert a logical impossibilty to refute these qualities. In doing this you present an "impossible" situation, and place it on the other side of the equation.

1 = 0

Anyone who has taken a math class at any level should be able to see there is something wrong with this. Since the whole equation represents God, then God cannot exist with the qualities we give Him. And, by looking at this, I would have to agree. This equation, however, remains incomplete. Because there are other things that God's qualities are capable of doing, besides the impossible. In fact, there is an infinite number of possibilities that must be included. Again, I use "1" to represent that infinite number. Understand that there may be an infinite number of impossibilities too, but 0 * infinity = 0.

1 = 1 + 0

Suddenly, God's existence looks reasonable again. When I say your proof is flawed, Divebomb, I should have said it was merely incomplete. Fill in the last necessary ingredient, and then your argument still does nothing to disprove or prove the existence of God, and we are back to where we started.

I stand by my assertion that I have yet to hear any reasonable argument that can deny God's existence. This, by no means, implies that I have heard a reasonable argument that proves God's existence. I do believe, however, that the proof can be seen, and is in fact seen by us every moment we exist. It may simply be that because the infinite is so difficult to comprehend that we have such a difficult time seeing it.

I finish by saying that I do not really know anything, as many of you will probably readily agree to. I haven't read the "great minds" of our history. Heck, all I have managed to accomplish in this life is to flunk out of college three times (a grand total of four semesters of rarely attended classes--hopefully, my latest effort will fare better). Please do not take my words as a command to you to accept my words as truth. What I say is only a jumbled mass of thoughts that collect in my head like so much sediment in a river bend.

[Bluestar]

What if burnt toast =1 and grape jelly =2? *blink*

Bluei

[Stars]

What if burnt toast =1 and grape jelly =2?

I am going to make a couple assumptions, Bluestar.

First, that burnt toast has a lesser value than regular toast.

R > B

Second, that when jelly is smeared on toast, the result is the sum of both values.

B + J = 3
R + J = 3 + (R – B)

Since we know that J = 2, then we make a substitution, and then subtract 2 from both sides.

R = 3 – 2 + (R – B)

Now, we know that B = 1, and if multiplied times R, still equals R, so we make a quick substitution on one side, and do some work on the other side.

BR = 1 + (R – 1)

We know that 1 and –1 cancel out.

BR = R

Since R > B, then we know that

BR > B

Since we don't know the actual value of R, then we have no idea if BR is less than, equal to, or greater than B + J.

In other words,

BR is better than burnt toast, but not necessarily better than burnt toast with jam.
It’s in the numbers, folks.

[Bluestar]

rofl

You are a goof!

Bluei