faux Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Originally posted by dyermaker The belief isn't that God can 'predict' the future, the belief is that time is irrelevant to God. You can't humanize God, and assume he operates on human timeframes. It's not like he's over your shoulder right now waiting to see whether you're going to blink or swallow first. He knows all, he knows everything that has happened, and everything that will happen, on human timeframes. This doesn't change your free will. You're free to choose to jump up and down right this second, and you're free to exterminate six million Jews. God will not interfere with your decision, he'll just know what you're going to do--you can't 'trick' him. How is any of this valid if there is no way to prove the existence of a god? As I see it, this is only your personal interpretation of what you feel god would be like. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Faux, re-read my post, starting with "The belief isn't that..." I was clarifying a Christian belief, not empirically proving the existence of God. Link to post Share on other sites
Papillon Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Originally posted by BlockHead You are making a big assumption. How can you conclude that B or u(t) is zero based on an infinitely small part of A, C, x(t), and y(t)? Remember, most of A, C, x(t), and y(t) are unknown, and probably will never be known. Even in ideal conditions, x(t) might not be observable from y(t). If, by some miracle, you have A and x(t), you can compute B*u(t) = dx(t) – A*x(t) B*u(t) = [God’s works] assuming u(t)=[God’s will] if dx(t) – A*x(t) = 0 either B = 0, u(t) = 0, or just the product B*u(t) = 0 Even with the perfect model of the universe saying that there is no contribution from God, you can’t be certain about his existence or nonexistence. Explain to me how u(t)=[] differs from u(t)=[God’s will] with regards to it being a huge assumption... How can you conclude that it is non-zero? Obviously u(t)=[] is valid in the context of the model, you just prefer to leave it out because then you could conveniently bifurcate the model between "God's will" and "God's/Satan's/Man's Will" Link to post Share on other sites
Author BlockHead Posted August 27, 2004 Author Share Posted August 27, 2004 Papillon Did you mean that u(t) = [] = 0? Remember, B and u(t) are unknown just like most of A. You can’t just define something as zero and expect everything to work out. I can just as easily make A = 0, and claim everything is God’s work given u(t)=[God’s will]. If you meant that u(t) = [] is a 0-by-0 matrix, then what you are describing doesn’t work mathematically. x(t) is a m-by-1 matrix function y(t) is a n-by-1 matrix function u(t) is a k-by-1 matrix function A is a m-by-m matrix B is a m-by-k matrix C is a n-by-m matrix kooky I am pretty good at math, and I know a few things. Mr. or Miss Papillon seems to think the universe obeys a set of laws and follows a set of equations. I only used two generalized equations (some control theory) to describe the universe. With regard to my avatar, I was after the dopey childhood villain look. It does need a cowboy hat for a more George W. Bush Texan look that would drive some people wild. Mathematics is definitely the language of the universe. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Originally posted by BlockHead With regard to my avatar, I was after the dopey childhood villain look. Huh. The fact that it goes great with the color scheme is just a coincidence? Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 No. God dictated that he do it Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Spock Posted August 28, 2004 Share Posted August 28, 2004 Boy, I'm glad I don't care one sh*t about this particular topic-it would have taken me a LONG time to type something out that makes me look smart. Link to post Share on other sites
Papillon Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by Mr Spock Boy, I'm glad I don't care one sh*t about this particular topic-it would have taken me a LONG time to type something out that makes me look smart. I have to agree it does paint a questionable picture of one's motives when you post a load of dubious math, knowing full well 99% of the people who are going to read it won't understand any of it. Originally posted by BlockHead Mathematics is definitely the language of the universe. Are you familiar with a certain Mr. Gödel's work? Link to post Share on other sites
tokyo Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 Originally posted by BlockHead kooky With regard to my avatar, I was after the dopey childhood villain look. It does need a cowboy hat for a more George W. Bush Texan look that would drive some people wild. I think it looks cute, totally confused and speechless, in awe of the atrocities of a relationship and life itself. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts