The Attributes of God

Originally posted by telerion
At least that would make me a chimp. You're a monkey.

Edit: Sadly, this sort of brutal honesty increases the quality of this thread.

AWESOME!!!!!!
Now, unless you have an argument to make against any of posts relative to the attributes of God, aren't there some mirrors in that room with which you can double your IQ?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
AWESOME!!!!!!
Now, unless you have an argument to make against any of posts relative to the attributes of God, aren't there some mirrors in that room with which you can double your IQ?

Actually I already did, but just as you did with Rob's point, you ignored my objection.

Seriously Freak, you just look very, very silly right now. The irrelevance of everything you write is as plain as the tail on that hairy monkey behind.

Still being a nice chimp, I'll throw a distant cousin a banana.

2x+3y+4z=-3

Please describe the solution to this equation. Argue on the merits of it being the favored (x,y,z) triple. Finally, explain why this exercise is, at its core, exactly like what you are trying to do in this thread.

Originally posted by telerion

Actually I already did, but just as you did with Rob's point, you ignored my objection.
Do you mean this one:

"You write that infinity begins at the edge of the plate, but you use the idea to mean that infinity ends at the edge of the plate.

Infinity by definition cannot end.

Quite simply, infinite is not like the edge of a plate."

If so, I used a plate to represent the universe. The edge of the plate represents the end of the known universe, beyond that being infinity, at least, so described. I was not using infinity in the mathematical sense, per se:
2^(N-1) - 1
as much as the cosmological sense. Regardless, the post fits all understandings of the term.

Seriously Freak, you just look very, very silly right now.
Coming from one who refuses to stay on point, I'll take that as a good stab at a compliment.

2x+3y+4z=-3
Linear equations with variables. How fun. I've a better idea. Howzabout you first (variable) show the logic gaps in the posted material, and then (variable) show how this equation mirrors what I am trying to do in this thread.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I've a better idea. Howzabout you first (variable) show the logic gaps in the posted material

Right. From your first post:

He is eternal, infinite and self-determining, therefore God's sovereignty is eternal, infinite and self-determining.
(Ps. 93:2; 8:1; 115:3; 135:6; Acts 5:39; Heb. 6:13; Job 9:12; Prov. 21:1; Dan 4:35)

Yes, I can see what a challenge it would be for anyone to show logic gaps in your posted material. This doesn't seem the least bit circular at all. Good show. I'm totally exhausted now.

Originally posted by David C
Right. From your first post:

[b]He is eternal, infinite and self-determining, therefore God's sovereignty is eternal, infinite and self-determining.
(Ps. 93:2; 8:1; 115:3; 135:6; Acts 5:39; Heb. 6:13; Job 9:12; Prov. 21:1; Dan 4:35)

Yes, I can see what a challenge it would be for anyone to show logic gaps in your posted material. This doesn't seem the least bit circular at all. Good show. I'm totally exhausted now.[/b]

David, you'll have to do better than this. This says that as God is eternal, so are His attributes. Neither is relying on the other, this is merely stating the application of one of His attributes, because of His eternal nature.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
David, you'll have to do better than this. This says that as God is eternal, so are His attributes. Neither is relying on the other, this is merely stating the application of one of His attributes, because of His eternal nature.

Freaky, no I won't. The bible says god is eternal, therefore god is eternal and so are his attributes...is that about it? It's both circular, and an ad verecundiam. Although, you do seem to be enjoying yourself, good for you!

Originally posted by David C
Freaky, no I won't.

ad verecundiam.
A misleading authority? Rich. You are qualified to dismiss the authority of the Bible? Whichever voice in your head that coughed out that bit of information needs to see a doctor. Leave the rest of them alone, though: they may be even more dangerous.

BTW, you may want to check out the definition of circular reasoning/argument, in case the term actually applies to a future discussion you have on any topic.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Actually I already did, but just as you did with Rob's point, you ignored my objection.
Do you mean this one:

"You write that infinity begins at the edge of the plate, but you use the idea to mean that infinity ends at the edge of the plate.

Infinity by definition cannot end.

Quite simply, infinite is not like the edge of a plate."

If ...[text shortened]... , and then (variable) show how this equation mirrors what I am trying to do in this thread.[/b]

If so, I used a plate to represent the universe. The edge of the plate represents the end of the known universe, beyond that being infinity, at least, so described. I was not using infinity in the mathematical sense, per se:
2^(N-1) - 1
as much as the cosmological sense. Regardless, the post fits all understandings of the term.


No it doesn't. "Beyond the known universe" is a completely made up Freak definition of "infinite." Besides, your post had infinite ending at the edge of the plate, with "beyond infinite" after that. It seems you don't stick with your BS definitions for more than a few pages.

2^(N-1)-1 ??

That has nothing to do with infinite. Do you actually know anything about mathematics?

This is why no one wants to really engage you. The thread is coming from your own fantasy world, where the rules and standards of mathematics and English language are subject to the whims of Freak.
We might as well debate time traveling glow worms with an institutionalized lunatic.

Linear equations with variables. How fun. I've a better idea. Howzabout you first (variable) show the logic gaps in the posted material, and then (variable) show how this equation mirrors what I am trying to do in this thread.

It's a single linear equation, and of course it has variables. Anyone who's taken algebra in high school should understand the point. To give you a hint, it relates a bit to what some one else said about using the Silmarillion to expound on the attributes of Sauron.

So are you going to take a stab at the exercise? It's really not very hard. Here I'll even cut you some slack. Give me the best solution and argue why it is so. I'll take care of the rest.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]ad verecundiam.
A misleading authority? Rich. You are qualified to dismiss the authority of the Bible? Whichever voice in your head that coughed out that bit of information needs to see a doctor. Leave the rest of them alone, though: they may be even more dangerous.

BTW, you may want to check out the definition of circular reasoning/argument, in case the term actually applies to a future discussion you have on any topic.[/b]

The bible has no authority to dismiss.

Originally posted by telerion
I'll take care of the rest.

"Beyond the known universe" is a completely made up Freak definition of "infinite."

in·fin·i·ty
n. pl. in·fin·i·ties
1. The quality or condition of being infinite.
2. Unbounded space, time, or quantity.
3. An indefinitely large number or amount.

So, apparently, my use of the second definition was ill-advised? Try harder, I'm sure you'll find me tripping up somewhere.

Besides, your post had infinite ending at the edge of the plate, with "beyond infinite" after that.
Here's the original post, for those syntax sticklers:

"Bosse's suggestion notwithstanding...

If the universe were a plate, infinity begins at the edge of the plate. And, whatever is beyond said infinity, the One who holds the plate, created infinity, is beyond both."

Let's see. "If the universe were a plate, infinity begins..." Oops. There go those pesky little facts, again. Easy to see why you could get confused, as you're not used to dealing with them on a frequent basis.

2^(N-1)-1 ??

That has nothing to do with infinite. Do you actually know anything about mathematics?
infinity
n. 1. The largest value that can be represented in a
particular type of variable (register, memory location, data type,
whatever). 2. `minus infinity': The smallest such value, not
necessarily or even usually the simple negation of plus infinity.
In N-bit twos-complement arithmetic, infinity is 2^(N-1) - 1 but
minus infinity is - (2^(N-1)), not -(2^(N-1) - 1). Note also that
this is different from "time T equals minus infinity", which is
closer to a mathematician's usage of infinity.

Not a lot, really. You?

So are you going to take a stab at the exercise? It's really not very hard.
I will not accept your challenge until you accept mine. Either expose the logic gaps in the posting regarding the attributes of God, or quit your quibbling. It's really not very hard.

This is why no one wants to really engage you.
You sell yourself short.

You're here for the same reason other non-God-botherers are: hoping against hope that someone will give you the answer. Your conscience and inner-most thoughts debate with you far more effectively than I could ever do. Want to argue with someone? Argue with yourself.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]"Beyond the known universe" is a completely made up Freak definition of "infinite."

in·fin·i·ty
n. pl. in·fin·i·ties
1. The quality or condition of being infinite.
2. Unbounded space, time, or quantity.
3. An indefinitely large number or amount.

So, apparently, my use of the second definition was ill-advised? Try harder, I'm sure you' ...[text shortened]... than I could ever do. Want to argue with someone? Argue with yourself.[/b]

Well I can see that you make good use of the internet. You still have made a mess of the second definition. Infinite does not "begin" anywhere.

That 2^(N-1)-1 crap was obviously something you pulled out of a frantic google search. It's easy to detect because you pass it off as if it is standard when in fact it is only one obscure example from a field of mathematics. It's like when some one drops a big vocabulary word that you know they just got from a "Word a Day" service because it doesn't fit the context.

Even if that awkwardness were not enough, your difficulty with the implicit function that I posted says it all. It's really not a deep point that I was making. I'm pretty sure most competent people can see the issue.


You're here for the same reason other non-God-botherers are: hoping against hope that someone will give you the answer. Your conscience and inner-most thoughts debate with you far more effectively than I could ever do. Want to argue with someone? Argue with yourself.

You're no good at math, nor at history. Now you will try your hand at psychoanalysis? Well, you've wasted enough of my time today. Back to studying something worthwhile.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That way, we could at least eat and derive something worthwhile from the conversation.

Yes. That in itself would make the elf discussion more palatable than your unintelligible ramblings about the attributes of 'God'.

Originally posted by telerion
The bible has no authority to dismiss.

That's exactly right.

Originally posted by telerion
You're no good at math, nor at history.

You still have made a mess of the second definition. Infinite does not "begin" anywhere.
If infinity is accepted as "unbound space," I'd say it's fair to describe infinity as beginning where 'bound (known boundary) space' ends. That's, like, the idea, dude. If you could propel yourself to the edge of the universe, you could then look out into infinity. But don't take your American Express card, because in infinity, they only take Visa.

It's easy to detect because you pass it off as if it is standard when in fact it is only one obscure example from a field of mathematics.
Standard? I don't recall citing it as the "standard," rather, as an example of a mathematical representation of infinity, totally inconsequential to the topic. It's obscurity wasn't meant to confuse you; it was meant as an acknowledgment of your area of expertise.

your difficulty with the implicit function that I posted says it all.
Akin to your refusal to stay on topic, and respond to the posts of this thread? It is, after all, a thread entitled, "The Attributes of God." Kind of hard to confuse the intent.

Now you will try your hand at psychoanalysis? Well, you've wasted enough of my time today.
How does that make you feel?

BTW, if you're up for a rousing game of Hide the Integer, check out the thread in General, entitled, "The Hodge Conjecture."

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes. That in itself would make the elf discussion more palatable than your unintelligible ramblings about the attributes of 'God'.

Must be the secret de-coder ring conspiracy, again. Perhaps, in your intelligence, you would be the first to step foward and point out the logical fallacy in any one of the posts relative to the attributes of God? Perhaps you can reveal the self-contradictions?

Like the rest of the self-described skeptics, you are only able to muster a reactionary scoff, totally void of reason or logic. You demand that Christians give a reason for their faith, and, in response, most Christians offer emotionalism and circular reasoning. That's ridicuously easy to dismiss, and likely one of the main reasons scoffers such as yourself are drawn to the circus. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, really.

However, when you are faced with a systematic outline of basic Christian theology (in this case, the attributes of God), one which exposes the essence and thus the thinking of God, you are left stammering out off-topic non-rebuttals. The de-coder ring is gone! Here is the boiled-down version of God's attributes, for one and all to see...
no response.

When a verse or a passage is given your full focus, any one of you will drain it to its last letter (out of context, of course) in attempt to extrapolate some supposed contradiction in God's character. And yet, when given Scripture's entire perspective of God...
no response.

When challenged to show the logic gaps in the presentation...
no response.