Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Does 2 + 2 = 4 need a god to be true?
Collapse
X
-
"[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostYes, you are wrong in your "proof," because (as I mentioned) 2+2=4 is not at all the same question as 2s+2e=2g. You didn't rebut any unstated assumptions. You asked an entirely different question and pretended it was relevant to the conversation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostSo is your idiocy. As per normal.
That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostYes, you are wrong in your "proof," because (as I mentioned) 2+2=4 is not at all the same question as 2s+2e=2g.
You didn't rebut any unstated assumptions.
You asked an entirely different question and pretended it was relevant to the conversation.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostDebate? Why on earth would I debate you, especially when you're not supposed to post to me, and will back out at any time?You are thoroughly incompetent, and this part of the thread is ample proof.
That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostThat's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostI count seven times thus far.
Or were you using some other non-standard symbolic representation for numbers?That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostAs your typical pattern, I run your diarrhea mouth, get slapped around by facts, and then run to the ad hominem as your only line of defense hoping that everyone will forget that I were run around like a cheap crack whore looking for a fix.
But, by all means, please do go on about how manly you are...
Where on earth, pray tell, did I even start talking about that?
Comment
-
And with that, I leave you to your self-importance. Merry Christmas to all.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostBecause you have to ASSUME that 2 and 4 are in base 10. Are you denying that you have made that assumption?
I most certainly did. I rebutted the assumption that these numbers HAD to be base 10, and that regardless of the system that these characters are included in, the character "2" added to the character "2" will always equal the character "4".
No I didn't. I simply changed the ASSUMED numbering system from the common base 10 to a base 3. The character "2" is the same in both systems, is it not? But there is no such character in Base 3 displayed as "4"."[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
-
Just to muddy the water yet further, 2 + 2 = 5 (and 2 + 2 =4 is incorrect) for sufficiently large values of 2, and sufficiently small values of 5.
eg 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8
There's also the question of how to add haystacks (2 + 2 = 1?) or shoals. And if I add two ingredients and two more ingredients, might I end up with one cake? If I add two children to two adults (and all are human, remember, so we are not adding dissimilars), I definitely end up with one nuclear family. I agree with Bill, 2 + 2 = 4 is system-dependent.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Sparko, 06-25-2024, 03:03 PM
|
37 responses
188 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-20-2024, 10:04 AM
|
27 responses
146 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
06-27-2024, 01:35 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 06-18-2024, 08:18 AM
|
82 responses
478 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
|
||
Started by whag, 06-15-2024, 09:43 AM
|
156 responses
641 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 06:38 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
468 responses
2,140 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
|
Comment