TAO Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Lehi:Even paper is a three sided object. It is about 0.1 mm thick. Insignificant when compared to its other two dimensions, but it is still there.It is technically possible to make though XD. All the way down to an atom ;-).Lehi is talking about a sphere in his most recent post I believe. =D.
thesometimesaint Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Nofear:My point is that objects are three dimensional, shapes not so much. A mobious strip is a three dimensional representation of a two dimensional shape. For "practical purposes" I'll agree.
LeSellers Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) Lehi:Even paper is a three sided object. It is about 0.1 mm thick. Insignificant when compared to its other two dimensions, but it is still there.Paper is a six-sided object: front and back, and top, bottom, left, and right "edges". However, when speaking of a "one-sided piece of paper", most people mean one with a "front", but no back. Nonetheless, I can make a one-sided, one edged piece of paper, and have done exactly that with a piece of steel. I can make a one-sided, no-edged object, and have done so thousands of times. As I said, I eat them (or used to) frequently. Lehi Edited June 29, 2011 by LeSellers
LeSellers Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) Lehi is talking about a sphere in his most recent post I believe.No, but close.And, yes, a sphere is a one-sided object with no edges. It's just that mine is far more complex.Lehi Edited June 29, 2011 by LeSellers
thesometimesaint Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Lehi:I accidently substituted sided for dimensional. My bad.
LeSellers Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) I accidently substituted sided for dimensional. No problem.But I can still make a three-dimenstional, one-sided, one edged object. Further, I can make a one-sided object with no edges at all. I figure if I can, God can, fer shure. (Getting marginally back to the topic.)Lehi Edited June 29, 2011 by LeSellers
LeSellers Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 [Mine was] only an approximation since a true klein bottle can have no boundary but is a closed surface with only one side. This requires that the object pass through itself without touching. We approximate it by putting a hole in the surface -- but that hole creates a boundary. So, it's not a true klein bottle. But, if we point our finger and say, "If this part passed through itself without touching itself then it would be a true klein bottle."For those who do not know what a Klein bottle is, here's a picture. One surface, a solid capable of holding a liquid (as you can see), and you can spill the contents (and refill it later). Lehi
LeSellers Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 That [a one-sided,object with no edges?] I would like to see.Much better to taste.Think "donut". Lehi
Jeff K. Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) Lehi:That I would like to see.But would you be able to see it. Edited June 29, 2011 by Jeff K.
thesometimesaint Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Lehi:A Klein bottle is still a three dimential body. It has length, width, and depth. IOW it has volume. As delicious a donuts are they still are three dimensional until I eat them.
LeSellers Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) A Klein bottle is still a three dimential body. It has length, width, and depth. IOW it has volume. But it has only one surface (and no edges).As delicious a donuts are they still are three dimensional until I eat them.But they have one side and no edges. Lehi Edited June 29, 2011 by LeSellers
LeSellers Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 Their [donuts'] edge is curved.Then they have no surface. That's a paradox!!Lehi
HeatherAnn Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 Which scientific theory/theories absolutely refute the existence of God?Define God first.Ironically, many atheists define God in traditional religious terms.Many religious beliefs cannot be studied scientifically, nor can serendipidous (spiritually inspired) moments be.Yet, there is scientific EVIDENCE for mysterious energy (which could be defined as God)... in dark energy/matter which makes up 95% of our universe.
Jeff K. Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) To many God is a doughnuts edge, He has no surface, but is very curvy! Edited June 30, 2011 by Jeff K.
mfbukowski Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 To many God is a doughnuts edge, He has no surface, but is very curvy! Very cool.So you mean, the closer I get to looking like a donut, the closer I get to God?Wow!Now that's some theology I can get "behind"!
mfbukowski Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Yes, but do you really want to lose your "edge"?Oh, that was gone long ago!
Robert F. Smith Posted July 2, 2011 Posted July 2, 2011 (edited) elguanteloko, on 27 June 2011 - 06:50 PM, said:The reason why people dismiss religious belief so easily with science is because religious belief has so many times before been shown to be useless when using it as a guide to understand the physical world and how it operates. Religion just has failed too many times to deliver evidence and has been shown to be wrong too many other times when good evidence is presented against it. cdowis said:Good insight.Another issue is that it is often illogical, doesn't make sense, too many unanswered questions.When I talk with a "confident" atheist who knows little about Mormonism, he walks away from the discussion with a little less confidence. He tries to zing me with the old arguments, and discovers that I have reasonable answers that make sense. He may not agree with them, but they are internally consistent. I'm curious. What are those "old arguments" from atheists and your answers that are internally consistent?Since cdowis hasn't yet replied, and since this thread seems to be derailing, I'll mention several of the ideas which he may have had in mind here:Rather than set itself up as a normative supernatural religion which distinguishes itself from science and logic, the LDS position is that science and religion (LDS religion and those compatible with it) are part of a phenomenological continuum in which science and logic explain and define phenomena in ways which -- if we but fully understood the nature of the vast universe -- we could extend to all other phenomena which we otherwise carelessly and ignorantly term "magical" or "miraculous." Naturally, we are unable to explain the nature of 95% of the universe, composed as it is of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.Anyhow, the LDS religion does this by defining God as in some ways finite and continuous with the universe, humans as part of the genus and species of God.At the same time, God and his human offspring are at base intelligences with no existential beginning and are therefore fundamentally necessary (non-contingent).Thus, they are free to choose their own fate, even as they are governed by universal law or the law of the harvest.The LDS religion is materialistic and excludes immaterial objects of any kind as nonexistent.These concepts eliminate the deadly series of illogical traps which infest normative Judeo-Christian dogma (creatio ex nihilo, theodicy, etc.), and simultaneously allow a friendly coexistence of science and religion, since they are in every way compatible explanations for the nature of ultimate reality.One is thus free to speculate about the nature of advanced civilizations in the universe, with sentient beings far more advanced than we are, though perhaps advancing in ways which we can only understand via God's plan of happiness, the plan of salvation which gives us entre to that glorious state.Perhaps that is some of what cdowis had in mind. Edited July 2, 2011 by Robert F. Smith 3
cdowis Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) The old canard, "Can God create a rock so large that He cannot lift it." The answer is no, of course. He is subject to natural law."Why would God create..... blah blah blah". ("Why does God allow it to rain on the ocean") Our bodies have imperfections, for example, and why would the Infinite Designer make such a flawed design.Actually God is a builder, not a designer as such. Create does not mean "poof", but to use natural processes and designs already in existence. He did not design the human body, it has always existed in its present form. Similar to Plato's templates or eternal forms.Their jaws just drop, and they quickly lose interest in talking with me.These questions are based on an ignorance of LDS doctrines, and assume we have the same theology as the historic Christians. Edited July 3, 2011 by cdowis
caudicus Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 If you have a vague enough definition of God, it is impossible to refute his existence.Really, it would be nice if people who believed in God proved his existence, rather than the other way around. My lack of belief would be instantly cured by a direct message from Him.
Jeff K. Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 If we have a glimpse of great power and majesty that defies the ability of our language to explain fully and correctly, it would seem to me that the language is vague, not God.Really, it would be nice if people who believed in God proved his existence, rather than the other way around. Why does God have to prove the existence of people? Or is that just vague language again?My lack of belief would be instantly cured by a direct message from Him. That is doubtful, not for you specifically, but consider the number of people who will tell you that any direct message you recieve is little more than a delusion, and after a while, you yourself might believe that you have suffered from a delusion and therefore dimiss it. Indeed you would constantly be demanding God appear before you, and others, again and again and again, simply to keep proving it. What a waste of time it would be for God.People are always or at least often denying what is in front of them, especially after they have left the presence of what is in front of them. Apparently materialistic evidence is not, nor ever has been a good motivating factor, certainly less so than faith.
Stargazer Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 Sigh. I provided what I thought was a really provocative personal theory about where God and we actually are (outside this universe, connected to this one by way of entrained particles), and then there was this two or three page discussion about Klein Bottles and Moebius Strips. I don't get any respect, my ideas are boring. Or something like that. This would explain a lot, by the way.But, on the other hand, someone brought up a standard argument against the existence of God, to wit: God is perfect, and obviously His designs would necessarily be perfect as well; however, our bodies are imperfectly designed; therefore there can be no God. I desire to comment on that.Well, aside from this being an example of the logical fallacy, Affirming the Consequent, it should be clear to everyone that if God were to design a perfect world with perfect organisms, then the jig would be up and there would be no other conclusion except for the obvious one that a Perfect Being had created it all. No plausible deniability whatsoever, and all you deniers would be in hot water.However, since God has declared his purpose, which is found in Moses 1:39:For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man....and if he didn't then arrange things so as to appear to be absent, then His purpose would be frustrated. After all, He needs to know what we will do when we are not knowingly under direct supervision. Will be behave like we were on Spring Break, or will we act responsibily?
cdowis Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) Except that you forgot to mention that He did not design anything. All things are created using pre-existent templates. There is no designing in the creation process.(BTW, that is why Satan's plan was unacceptable -- it would not have worked.)While this is an interesting argument against the ID theory, ID is not consistent with LDS theology. Edited July 4, 2011 by cdowis
Recommended Posts