How do you plan to measure complexity?

[Sophia]

But as you say, you can’t trust anything in the bible to be true.

Hehe! Remember: Everything in the Bible is true, and some of it actually happened! Just like the professor in a medical university, who said: "Half of what you will learn during your studies is pure guesswork. Unfortunately no one knows which half.

 

[Vonsalza]

Bradskii:

But as you say, you can’t trust anything in the bible to be true.

Hehe! Remember: Everything in the Bible is true, and some of it actually happened!

Instead of using that statement as a punchline, I suggest you reconsider what it’s actually saying.

 

[Sophia]

Instead of using that statement as a punchline, I suggest you reconsider what it’s actually saying.

I know what it means. Some are historical events, others are allegories, and some are poetry. The problem is that there is no official list, which would show, which verses belong where. So I prefer the punchline… at least it is funny.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Instead of using that statement as a punchline, I suggest you reconsider what it’s actually saying.

I know what it means. Some are historical events, others are allegories, and some are poetry. The problem is that there is no official list, which would show, which verses belong where.

I have my doubts that you would recognize the authority that issued such a list as being sufficiently authoritative to do so since the text itself does not reciprocally identify that authority. So it seems like an objection you levy that would have no resolution, imo.

A bigger issue still would be the faulty assumption that Christianity arose from the bible, rather than the other way around (particularly the NT part of it).

But if it would help, there are plenty of Catholic Commentaries that are endorsed at different levels of the Catholic Church. I can recommend some, if you’d like.

As a caveat, most of my commentaries aren’t Catholic. I can recommend some of those too.

So I prefer the punchline… at least it is funny.

Sure, but given the context of where it’s delivered it’s probably a sub-optimal choice. If nothing else, it does little to dispel the “asinine atheist” stereotype so many encounter that would rather avoid it on both sides.

 

[Gorgias]

But it is.

No, really it isn’t. It says what it asserts is necessary to believe: God created everything from nothing. All of creation was ‘good’. He created humanity, and called it ‘very good’. The first humans sinned and fell from grace. Period.

The church cannot even tell the fate of the unbaptized children

Umm… from the ITC’s The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized.

“As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them.

What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church."

Sophia:

, or the fate of all those who were born before Jesus.

Again… you’re mistaken. From the Catechism (#632-33):

Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.

Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.

@Sophia: the Church does believe that unbaptized infants are saved, and it does say that those righteous persons who lived before Jesus’ Incarnation were likewise saved.

In all charity… you’re vastly mistaken on what the Church teaches.

 

[o_mlly]

I was talking about mathematics. The words “real” and “imaginary” (along with “rational” and “irrational”) have a very specific, and well defined meaning in mathematics.

Yes, so was I. Imaginary numbers do not exist in any reality.

For instance, “Sophie, how many cookies does your imaginary friend want? Oh, she’ll have √(−1) cookies.”

 

[Gorgias]

For instance, “Sophie, how many cookies does your imaginary friend want? Oh, she’ll have √(−1) cookies.”

Those are my favorite cookies! They have √(−1) calories!!!

 

[o_mlly]

For instance, “Sophie, how many cookies does your imaginary friend want? Oh, she’ll have √(−1) cookies.”

OK. Playtime’s over. Back to school.

Review:

• Complex property --a property, attribute or faculty observed in the descendant that does not exist in its progenitors.
• The principle of sufficient reason - (a thing cannot give what it does not already possess), all effects must have causes.

Let the constituents properties = x.
Let the resultant properties = y.
Complex properties are measurable if y > x, and are = to y - x.

 

[rossum]

The principle of sufficient reason - (a thing cannot give what it does not already possess), all effects must have causes.

Then you are denying creation. If God ‘created’ Armadillos, then He already possessed all the characteristics of all Armadillos (otherwise He could not have created them). Since God is eternal, then the characteristics of Armadillos are also eternal, since God possesses all of those characteristics.

Anything that is eternal does not have a creator, hence God did not create any of the characteristics of Armadillos. Hence, God did not create Armadillos because all of their characteristics are eternal, and have existed for eternity. Even God cannot create what already exists.

The same applies to everything in creation. You are denying difference between effect and cause, so everything in the effect already existed in the cause. If the cause is God, then every effect already exists in God, and hence is itself eternal.

You might want to read Nagarjuna on causation.

rossum

 

[o_mlly]

If God ‘created’ Armadillos, then He already possessed all the characteristics of all Armadillos (otherwise He could not have created them).

That’s correct.

Since God is eternal, then the characteristics of Armadillos are also eternal, since God possesses all of those characteristics.

That is not correct.

The constituent(s) must pre-possess the resultant’s properties but the constituent(s) do not necessarily pass any particular property to the resultant.

 

[rossum]

That is not correct.

Then God changes from ‘no-Armadillo-characteristics’ to ‘having-Armadillo-characteristics’. I thought God was unchanging? Are you telling me that God changes?

If the Armadillo-characteristics are not eternal and God created them, then God must have Armadillo-characteristics-characteristics in order to be able to create Armadillo-characteristics. Are the A-c-c’s eternal or not? If not then we have A-c-c-c’s and so on.

You appear to have an infinite regress.

rossum

 

[o_mlly]

Then God changes from ‘no-Armadillo-characteristics’ to ‘having-Armadillo-characteristics’.

The descendant does not change its progenitors’ properties.

Perhaps thinking of “cause-to-effect” as a one-way street may help.

We are discussing the properties of material things that beget other material things. Creating form nothing is outside that scope.

 

[Sophia]

A bigger issue still would be the faulty assumption that Christianity arose from the bible, rather than the other way around (particularly the NT part of it).

So what use is the Bible, then? For the protestants the Sola Scriptura is the guideline. The Catholic Church does not agree with that. Fine. But then the lack of authoritative enumeration of which parts are historical, and which are allegorical casts doubt on the authority of the church. Not to mention that the interpretation changes as the wind blows.

No, really it isn’t. It says what it asserts is necessary to believe: God created everything from nothing. All of creation was ‘good’. He created humanity, and called it ‘very good’. The first humans sinned and fell from grace. Period.

Necessary is not the same as sufficient. There is no official enumeration of what should anyone do to “earn” salvation - and since that is the most important question anyone can face, the lack of the unquestionable list tells us that the church seriously lacks the necessary knowledge. And remember, salvation cannot really be “earned”. Works without “faith” are meaningless. So the most important question: “how can salvation be achieved (mind you, not “earned”, but “achieved”)?” is unanswered. And no one had “faith” in the stone age, since there was no Talmud, or NT back then. There are some “sects” in Catholicism, consisting of the “ultra-super” conservatives, who even consider Pope Francis a “heretic”. I suggest you try to resolve your differences with those brethren of yours, before you try to talk to others.

Umm… from the ITC’s The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized.

Hope is not the same as officially provided knowledge.

 

[Sophia]

Yes, so was I. Imaginary numbers do not exist in any reality.

Of course they do. The original concept of numbers were the representation of the positive integers on the “number line”. These are called “natural numbers”. The natural numbers form a closed set for the addition, multiplication and raising to a power. These are the direct operations.

Once the inverse operations were introduced, the set of natural numbers was inadequate. (Since addition and multiplication are “commutative” operations, they have only one inverse operation. Raising a number to a power is NOT commutative, so it has two inverse operations.) The negative integers and zero were necessary for accounting the results of subtraction. Then the fractions were necessary to represent the numbers of division. The raising to a power has two inverse operations, the “roots” and the “logarithms”. These were “almost” sufficient to represent the results of these operations - but not quite. The so called “real numbers” now fill up the number line.

However one more further generalization was needed. And so the “numbers” are now extended from the points on the “number line” to all the points of the “number plane”. The so called “real numbers” reside on the “x axis”, while the “imaginary numbers” reside on the “y axis”. Very bad choice of words. The points on the number plane form a closed set for all the operations.

Of course there are other generalizations for the “usual” numbers, the vectors and matrices. These represent points in some “n-dimensional” space, and they are just as real as any number. By the way, without the “complex” numbers there is no physics or electronics, there are no computers or televisions. On what ground do you call these “imaginary” is beyond comprehension.

Math lesson is over. Whether you understood it or not, is no concern of mine.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

A bigger issue still would be the faulty assumption that Christianity arose from the bible, rather than the other way around (particularly the NT part of it).

So what use is the Bible, then?

It’s the most significant source of holy writ. But it’s not meant to be authoritatively interpreted outside the Church. Think of it like the US code. You might have an interpretation of a particular law, but it will never be as authoritative as a federal judge’s interpretation of that law.

But then the lack of authoritative enumeration of which parts are historical, and which are allegorical casts doubt on the authority of the church.

That doesn’t follow. They’re simply allowing for personal interpretive range. They invoke their authority in doing this - which is hardly the same as casting doubt.

Not to mention that the interpretation changes as the wind blows.

As they love quoting Aquinas and 5th century Fathers, “as the wind blows” might be a tiny bit exaggerated.

 

[AlNg]

You appear to have an infinite regress.

I don’t see what is wrong with an infinite regress. You have these type of things in math and physics all the time and they are easy to handle.

 

[Gorgias]

There is no official enumeration of what should anyone do to “earn” salvation - and since that is the most important question anyone can face, the lack of the unquestionable list tells us that the church seriously lacks the necessary knowledge.

Wow.

Seriously?

First of all, there is no such thing as “earning” salvation. You seem to recognize this, but it’s disconcerting that you feel the need to throw that red herring out there.

However, if you think that the Church doesn’t teach how Christians may be saved… you’re mistaken on that count, as well. I would recommend that you read the Catechism – and ask questions here at CAF about anything that confuses you! The Church most certainly teaches on the subject of “how salvation may be achieved”!

Finally, even though “there was no NT back in the Stone Age”, the Church does not identify that as the criteria for salvation for those who lived before Jesus. You seem to want to continue to assert some doctrine which the Church does not teach. I suggest you try to resolve your differences between what the Church teaches and what you think it teaches, before you try to talk to others.

Hope is not the same as officially provided knowledge.

God has not told us the ‘mechanism’ or ‘process’ by which he saves the unbaptized. The Church teaches that we believe that they are saved, however.

 

[AlNg]

The points on the number plane form a closed set for all the operations.

False. 1 divided by zero is not a number on the plane. Similarly, the limit as epsilon tends to zero of 1 divided by epsilon is not a number on the plane. You have to introduce a point at infinity which is not on the plane if you perform such operations.

 

[o_mlly]

Whether you understood it or not, is no concern of mine.

OK. Then I suppose the only reason you posted 278 words of explanation was … well, petty vanity.

 

[rossum]

The descendant does not change its progenitors’ properties.

Yes it does. It changes a non-creator into a creator by its existence, just as a child changes a non-parent into a parent.

Perhaps thinking of “cause-to-effect” as a one-way street may help.

One of Nagarjuna’s insights was that causation is a two-way-street. Is there anywhere a parent (cause) who has not had children (effect)?

We are discussing the properties of material things that beget other material things. Creating form nothing is outside that scope.

Why? Quantum mechanics is part of the scope of material science, and virtual particles are ‘created’ from nothing.

rossum