Defending the Gospel

[Rob Osborn]

32 minutes ago, zil said:

I hate to break it to you, but while you all were debating the existence of endless stuff, the middle of eternity came and went, and you missed it.  There was a party, funny hats, noise-makers, cake and ice cream, white-elephant gifts, and a fireworks show at the end.  You should have been there.  It was great.

I actually attended last year, Im living in the future and I already attended it last year.

[Traveler]

 

In some ways, I find this discussion exciting – but mostly from a selfish stand point.  I would compare it to trying to explain alpine skiing to a skateboarder that has never even seen snow.  There are similarities and a skateboarder can use many of the skills they acquired skateboarding and we can discuss the similarities and differences but to ski – the boarder will have to acquire “new” skills and abilities.

In a discussion, we use symbols to convey ideas.   But symbols only carry the meaning that is common to both parties.  Sometimes we may attempt new symbols to convey innovative ideas.  That is – someone with an idea that has not previously been expressed (no symbol known to both) will create a symbolic reference and then try to explain it.  A good example of this paradox and effort was manifested by Tyndale and his effort to translate the Bible into English.  There were a number of concepts that existed in the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts but there were no symbolic words in English.  So, what Tyndale did was make up new English words to create a possible symbol for the concepts.  Two such words that I can remember are “atonement” and “Passover”.

In our era, these symbols have relative modern concepts for those that speak English and are religious – in particular “Christian”.   But in the era of Tyndale the new man-made English  words (symbols) were an abomination and the main reason Tyndale was burned at the stake.  I bring this part of history up because it is a classic breakdown in logic between two individuals using symbols that have slightly (or perhaps significantly) different meanings. 

As we learn, we evolve.  Isaiah prophesied this phenomenon with his “line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  I will now try an abbreviated history of number theory and evolving human intelligence.  If someone had one something – it was easy to keep track of.  But as the something become somethings – keeping track of all the somethings became a little more difficult.  Average (normal) human intelligence crossed a threshold where keeping track of many things was not possible.  So, elementary number theory and its associated symbiology was invented.  This initial number theory is what we now call the counting number system.  If some guy had 10 wives he could now count them and know when one was missing.  And if he got 3 more wives could make a “calculation” and know how many wives he could expect in his home.

In order to be consistent; logic, laws and principles were established to define how these numbers (symbols) and system could be used.  However, from time to time there were problems and new ideas and symbols had to be invented to handle the new problems.  With the new symbols; new laws and principles had to be invented to keep the logic consistent.  The binary operation of addition was obvious with normal counting numbers but as needs evolved so did the symbols and so did the laws and principles that govern the use of the new symbols.  One of the breakthroughs was the definition of the binary operation of subtraction which led to a very new concept of “negative” numbers and then the idea that by “subtracting” negative numbers – one could end up with positive numbers.  I can only imagine how this concept was accepted by the logic purists of some long-ago era, that thought negative numbers were illogical, evil and contrary to “reality”.

The real problem was that the logic purists were insistent on using the laws principles and logic associated with their old symbols but with the new symbols – and there were “endless” flaws and problems.   How can we “convert” old thinkers to new and improved concepts without getting yourself burned at the stake like Tyndale?

The concept of infinity as a mathematical symbol was invented over 2,000 years ago by the Greeks.   Some believe that the Greeks really stole the concept of infinity for the ancient Egyptians.  Historically this is difficult to resolve because the ancient Egyptian mathematicians were scared of getting burned at the stake for their “new and advanced” concepts so they kept their ideas secret in a guild or cult.

In our post-modern culture, we teach what is called the real number system of number theory.  It is quite rare for someone to come out of k-12 education with any other logic, concept or understanding outside of real numbers.  The number represented by infinity is not a real number and if one wants to be able to use infinity – they are going to have to develop new logic skills with new principles.  Kind of like a skateboarder is going to have to ditch his wheels in order to have any success downhill skiing.  Such a skiing effort with wheels will result in the individual declaring downhill skiing as stupid illogical lunacy.  And of course, the skateboarder will be right in his assessment based on his understand and logic but the downhill skier will be perplexed in what appears to them as sure stupid illogical lunacy.   These two different kinds of individuals are going to end up hating each other – Jesus called such interchanges disputations and warned that they are inspired of Satan.  That is harsh.

But it all came about because of application of laws, principles, rules and logic applicable for a certain construct for which the laws, principles, rules and logic are not applicable. 

For any particular real number, there is only one real number that is ½ the first.  But the laws, principles, rules and logic applicable to the number infinity does not apply the same.  We cannot say there is or is not any or even many real numbers that are ½ of infinity.  The best advice I have for @Rob Osborn at this point is to stay with real numbers and not make any effort to understand or criticize the concepts of infinity.  For someone that understands advanced number theory – he will look like a skateboarder trying to ski in snow on his board with wheels.   And of course, the skier will seem to be overcomplicating a simple concept with any effort to help the skateboarder or trying to bridge any understanding of other skiers to the skateboarder.  And in the end eather someone will learn something new - either the skateboarder to not use wheels on snow - or the skiers will learn not to talk to or try to help skateboarders that cannot give up their wheels when on snow.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

58 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

In some ways, I find this discussion exciting – but mostly from a selfish stand point.  I would compare it to trying to explain alpine skiing to a skateboarder that has never even seen snow.  There are similarities and a skateboarder can use many of the skills they acquired skateboarding and we can discuss the similarities and differences but to ski – the boarder will have to acquire “new” skills and abilities.

In a discussion, we use symbols to convey ideas.   But symbols only carry the meaning that is common to both parties.  Sometimes we may attempt new symbols to convey innovative ideas.  That is – someone with an idea that has not previously been expressed (no symbol known to both) will create a symbolic reference and then try to explain it.  A good example of this paradox and effort was manifested by Tyndale and his effort to translate the Bible into English.  There were a number of concepts that existed in the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts but there were no symbolic words in English.  So, what Tyndale did was make up new English words to create a possible symbol for the concepts.  Two such words that I can remember are “atonement” and “Passover”.

In our era, these symbols have relative modern concepts for those that speak English and are religious – in particular “Christian”.   But in the era of Tyndale the new man-made English  words (symbols) were an abomination and the main reason Tyndale was burned at the stake.  I bring this part of history up because it is a classic breakdown in logic between two individuals using symbols that have slightly (or perhaps significantly) different meanings. 

As we learn, we evolve.  Isaiah prophesied this phenomenon with his “line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  I will now try an abbreviated history of number theory and evolving human intelligence.  If someone had one something – it was easy to keep track of.  But as the something become somethings – keeping track of all the somethings became a little more difficult.  Average (normal) human intelligence crossed a threshold where keeping track of many things was not possible.  So, elementary number theory and its associated symbiology was invented.  This initial number theory is what we now call the counting number system.  If some guy had 10 wives he could now count them and know when one was missing.  And if he got 3 more wives could make a “calculation” and know how many wives he could expect in his home.

In order to be consistent; logic, laws and principles were established to define how these numbers (symbols) and system could be used.  However, from time to time there were problems and new ideas and symbols had to be invented to handle the new problems.  With the new symbols; new laws and principles had to be invented to keep the logic consistent.  The binary operation of addition was obvious with normal counting numbers but as needs evolved so did the symbols and so did the laws and principles that govern the use of the new symbols.  One of the breakthroughs was the definition of the binary operation of subtraction which led to a very new concept of “negative” numbers and then the idea that by “subtracting” negative numbers – one could end up with positive numbers.  I can only imagine how this concept was accepted by the logic purists of some long-ago era, that thought negative numbers were illogical, evil and contrary to “reality”.

The real problem was that the logic purists were insistent on using the laws principles and logic associated with their old symbols but with the new symbols – and there were “endless” flaws and problems.   How can we “convert” old thinkers to new and improved concepts without getting yourself burned at the stake like Tyndale?

The concept of infinity as a mathematical symbol was invented over 2,000 years ago by the Greeks.   Some believe that the Greeks really stole the concept of infinity for the ancient Egyptians.  Historically this is difficult to resolve because the ancient Egyptian mathematicians were scared of getting burned at the stake for their “new and advanced” concepts so they kept their ideas secret in a guild or cult.

In our post-modern culture, we teach what is called the real number system of number theory.  It is quite rare for someone to come out of k-12 education with any other logic, concept or understanding outside of real numbers.  The number represented by infinity is not a real number and if one wants to be able to use infinity – they are going to have to develop new logic skills with new principles.  Kind of like a skateboarder is going to have to ditch his wheels in order to have any success downhill skiing.  Such a skiing effort with wheels will result in the individual declaring downhill skiing as stupid illogical lunacy.  And of course, the skateboarder will be right in his assessment based on his understand and logic but the downhill skier will be perplexed in what appears to them as sure stupid illogical lunacy.   These two different kinds of individuals are going to end up hating each other – Jesus called such interchanges disputations and warned that they are inspired of Satan.  That is harsh.

But it all came about because of application of laws, principles, rules and logic applicable for a certain construct for which the laws, principles, rules and logic are not applicable. 

For any particular real number, there is only one real number that is ½ the first.  But the laws, principles, rules and logic applicable to the number infinity does not apply the same.  We cannot say there is or is not any or even many real numbers that are ½ of infinity.  The best advice I have for @Rob Osborn at this point is to stay with real numbers and not make any effort to understand or criticize the concepts of infinity.  For someone that understands advanced number theory – he will look like a skateboarder trying to ski in snow on his board with wheels.   And of course, the skier will seem to be overcomplicating a simple concept with any effort to help the skateboarder or trying to bridge any understanding of other skiers to the skateboarder.  And in the end eather someone will learn something new - either the skateboarder to not use wheels on snow - or the skiers will learn not to talk to or try to help skateboarders that cannot give up their wheels when on snow.

 

The Traveler

Let me ask- how many is the color blue subtracted from a triangle? Or- how can we evenly divide the apples from joy?

The problem is thus the same for infinity in math. Its the same analogy. We dont say- "how many additions are required to use a pencil". Infinity is only applicable in math as a concept to explain a process or order of succession that doesnt end. Just like the "+" sign, it doesnt represent any numerical value but rather represents which operation or process is involved. In math we have or use numerical relations that have value to define quantity or sums with each other. 

Infinity is synonymous with boundless, eternal, neverending, limitless, etc. As it applies in math, its a concept or function to just say it repeats forever, has no finish, no limit, etc. No applicable math equation is possible when one tries to introduce infinity as a numerical value. Thats no different than asking how many playgrounds in a city does one have if they subtract picking apples in an orchard.

[The Folk Prophet]

51 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Let me ask- how many is the color blue subtracted from a triangle?

I believe I answered this one.

 

[brlenox]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

In some ways, I find this discussion exciting – but mostly from a selfish stand point.  I would compare it to trying to explain alpine skiing to a skateboarder that has never even seen snow.  There are similarities and a skateboarder can use many of the skills they acquired skateboarding and we can discuss the similarities and differences but to ski – the boarder will have to acquire “new” skills and abilities.

In a discussion, we use symbols to convey ideas.   But symbols only carry the meaning that is common to both parties.  Sometimes we may attempt new symbols to convey innovative ideas.  That is – someone with an idea that has not previously been expressed (no symbol known to both) will create a symbolic reference and then try to explain it.  A good example of this paradox and effort was manifested by Tyndale and his effort to translate the Bible into English.  There were a number of concepts that existed in the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts but there were no symbolic words in English.  So, what Tyndale did was make up new English words to create a possible symbol for the concepts.  Two such words that I can remember are “atonement” and “Passover”.

In our era, these symbols have relative modern concepts for those that speak English and are religious – in particular “Christian”.   But in the era of Tyndale the new man-made English  words (symbols) were an abomination and the main reason Tyndale was burned at the stake.  I bring this part of history up because it is a classic breakdown in logic between two individuals using symbols that have slightly (or perhaps significantly) different meanings. 

As we learn, we evolve.  Isaiah prophesied this phenomenon with his “line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  I will now try an abbreviated history of number theory and evolving human intelligence.  If someone had one something – it was easy to keep track of.  But as the something become somethings – keeping track of all the somethings became a little more difficult.  Average (normal) human intelligence crossed a threshold where keeping track of many things was not possible.  So, elementary number theory and its associated symbiology was invented.  This initial number theory is what we now call the counting number system.  If some guy had 10 wives he could now count them and know when one was missing.  And if he got 3 more wives could make a “calculation” and know how many wives he could expect in his home.

In order to be consistent; logic, laws and principles were established to define how these numbers (symbols) and system could be used.  However, from time to time there were problems and new ideas and symbols had to be invented to handle the new problems.  With the new symbols; new laws and principles had to be invented to keep the logic consistent.  The binary operation of addition was obvious with normal counting numbers but as needs evolved so did the symbols and so did the laws and principles that govern the use of the new symbols.  One of the breakthroughs was the definition of the binary operation of subtraction which led to a very new concept of “negative” numbers and then the idea that by “subtracting” negative numbers – one could end up with positive numbers.  I can only imagine how this concept was accepted by the logic purists of some long-ago era, that thought negative numbers were illogical, evil and contrary to “reality”.

The real problem was that the logic purists were insistent on using the laws principles and logic associated with their old symbols but with the new symbols – and there were “endless” flaws and problems.   How can we “convert” old thinkers to new and improved concepts without getting yourself burned at the stake like Tyndale?

The concept of infinity as a mathematical symbol was invented over 2,000 years ago by the Greeks.   Some believe that the Greeks really stole the concept of infinity for the ancient Egyptians.  Historically this is difficult to resolve because the ancient Egyptian mathematicians were scared of getting burned at the stake for their “new and advanced” concepts so they kept their ideas secret in a guild or cult.

In our post-modern culture, we teach what is called the real number system of number theory.  It is quite rare for someone to come out of k-12 education with any other logic, concept or understanding outside of real numbers.  The number represented by infinity is not a real number and if one wants to be able to use infinity – they are going to have to develop new logic skills with new principles.  Kind of like a skateboarder is going to have to ditch his wheels in order to have any success downhill skiing.  Such a skiing effort with wheels will result in the individual declaring downhill skiing as stupid illogical lunacy.  And of course, the skateboarder will be right in his assessment based on his understand and logic but the downhill skier will be perplexed in what appears to them as sure stupid illogical lunacy.   These two different kinds of individuals are going to end up hating each other – Jesus called such interchanges disputations and warned that they are inspired of Satan.  That is harsh.

But it all came about because of application of laws, principles, rules and logic applicable for a certain construct for which the laws, principles, rules and logic are not applicable. 

For any particular real number, there is only one real number that is ½ the first.  But the laws, principles, rules and logic applicable to the number infinity does not apply the same.  We cannot say there is or is not any or even many real numbers that are ½ of infinity.  The best advice I have for @Rob Osborn at this point is to stay with real numbers and not make any effort to understand or criticize the concepts of infinity.  For someone that understands advanced number theory – he will look like a skateboarder trying to ski in snow on his board with wheels.   And of course, the skier will seem to be overcomplicating a simple concept with any effort to help the skateboarder or trying to bridge any understanding of other skiers to the skateboarder.  And in the end eather someone will learn something new - either the skateboarder to not use wheels on snow - or the skiers will learn not to talk to or try to help skateboarders that cannot give up their wheels when on snow.

 

The Traveler

I just wanted to say that your posts are wonderfully eloquent and comprised of intelligent composition and flow such that they are a delight to read. You convey your ideas with a comfortable sense of actual understanding most likely gleaned from sincere effort to truly comprehend a matter.  Bravo to the quality of your presentation.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Let me ask- how many is the color blue subtracted from a triangle? Or- how can we evenly divide the apples from joy?

The problem is thus the same for infinity in math. Its the same analogy. We dont say- "how many additions are required to use a pencil". Infinity is only applicable in math as a concept to explain a process or order of succession that doesnt end. Just like the "+" sign, it doesnt represent any numerical value but rather represents which operation or process is involved. In math we have or use numerical relations that have value to define quantity or sums with each other. 

Infinity is synonymous with boundless, eternal, neverending, limitless, etc. As it applies in math, its a concept or function to just say it repeats forever, has no finish, no limit, etc. No applicable math equation is possible when one tries to introduce infinity as a numerical value. Thats no different than asking how many playgrounds in a city does one have if they subtract picking apples in an orchard.

How do you feel about the numerical value of Zero, "0"?  Or the null set?  Is it not the same value as the "color blue subtracted from a triangle"?  In addition, do you realize that if I can demonstrate a single application for infinity in math as a concept to explain a process or order of succession that does end - that it proves your logic 100% and completely false?

I will provide such an example - As a function approaches a point it will progress closer to a value.  The function is defined as a “continuous” function at the point if the value is the same when approaching infinitely closer to that point (but not actually reaching the point) from both the greater and lesser sides of the point.  I left something out of this discussion concerning non-continuous functions because it is not relevant to our discussion.   Obviously, there is an “end” in the purpose and destination of our infinity; that in this case has a precise and definitely defined “end” - which is the point (point being a real number of the function at the point) of the discussion – Pun definingly intended.

Now you may not think (for some reason that you think you can invent) that this concept of continuous and noncontiguous application of “infinity” could possibly result in anything useful – but I would point out that if you are using electronic technology to read this post then you are employing the usefulness of the concept of “infinity” to provide the modeling and design that allows the electronic technology you are using to be available for your use.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

How do you feel about the numerical value of Zero, "0"?  Or the null set?  Is it not the same value as the "color blue subtracted from a triangle"?  In addition, do you realize that if I can demonstrate a single application for infinity in math as a concept to explain a process or order of succession that does end - that it proves your logic 100% and completely false?

I will provide such an example - As a function approaches a point it will progress closer to a value.  The function is defined as a “continuous” function at the point if the value is the same when approaching infinitely closer to that point (but not actually reaching the point) from both the greater and lesser sides of the point.  I left something out of this discussion concerning non-continuous functions because it is not relevant to our discussion.   Obviously, there is an “end” in the purpose and destination of our infinity; that in this case has a precise and definitely defined “end” - which is the point (point being a real number of the function at the point) of the discussion – Pun definingly intended.

Now you may not think (for some reason that you think you can invent) that this concept of continuous and noncontiguous application of “infinity” could possibly result in anything useful – but I would point out that if you are using electronic technology to read this post then you are employing the usefulness of the concept of “infinity” to provide the modeling and design that allows the electronic technology you are using to be available for your use.

 

The Traveler

I can guarentee you that the technology I am using is based entirely off of calculations and technology using entirely finite numbers and values.

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I can guarentee you that the technology I am using is based entirely off of calculations and technology using entirely finite numbers and values.

Really???  Do you have any idea what Laplace transforms and a "step function" are?   I assume from your statement above you have a firm grasp of circuit theory and diode technology.  One last request since you are an expert in finite numbers - prove for me that "0" [Zero] is a "finite" number.

Thanks

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

15 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Really???  Do you have any idea what Laplace transforms and a "step function" are?   I assume from your statement above you have a firm grasp of circuit theory and diode technology.  One last request since you are an expert in finite numbers - prove for me that "0" [Zero] is a "finite" number.

Thanks

 

The Traveler

Im not seeing how having to know the value of infinity works in any of those things. Math equations are composed of entirely finite numbers. Any infinite symbol ever usef means nothing, carries no numerical value.

"0" is a means of communicating a meaning. Its a symbol that may be used in a finite number like 2,970 or it can mean nothing like there are "zero" apples left. 

[zil]

31 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Really???  Do you have any idea what Laplace transforms and a "step function" are?   I assume from your statement above you have a firm grasp of circuit theory and diode technology.  One last request since you are an expert in finite numbers - prove for me that "0" [Zero] is a "finite" number.

Thanks

The Traveler

It seems to me that if ever anything had the ability to not exist, it's zero.  On the other hand, it seems to me that zero has no ability whatsoever, so maybe it can't even not exist.  Hmm.  Conundrum.  I shall have to ponder zero's complete lack of ability and existence.  I'm slightly worried, however, that my pondering will come to naught.

[Traveler]

On ‎11‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 3:38 PM, zil said:

It seems to me that if ever anything had the ability to not exist, it's zero.  On the other hand, it seems to me that zero has no ability whatsoever, so maybe it can't even not exist.  Hmm.  Conundrum.  I shall have to ponder zero's complete lack of ability and existence.  I'm slightly worried, however, that my pondering will come to naught.

 

Okay – I will admit to setting a trap for Rob.  I thought he would find a proof on the internet proving Zero as a real number with finite value (thought infinitesimally small but having finite value and thus being what he calls a finite number) and post a link.  All proofs – at least that I am aware of that attempt this; uses the concept of continuity (real number continuous as a function at “0”) which make use of (or define – assume) infinity as a number to employ infinitesimally small numbers (real and with finite value) as we approach “0”.  I have posted about theoretical inconsistencies that have brought about the evolution of number theory because the idea that infinity is a number evolved before the evolution of the number “0”.

This is all very convoluted for someone that does not believe that infinity is a number – because, for example, if we have a defined bounded set of any real numbers that include “0” and divide any of the numbers in the set with the number “0” then we have proof (according to the theory of Algebra) that infinity is a number. 

I have thought of creating a blog about the convergence of number theory with theology and comparing ancient Egyptian number theory with their religious concept of Eternity.  I thought this might be interesting because Joseph Smith used the ancient Egyptian number for infinity (a word I would have typed here but my spelling is so poor I cannot find it in a scripture search) which also is the same term for eternal rather than the modern use of “eternal” from our English language – and then bring in some other interesting concepts concerning ancient titles used by Christ.  But I do not know if this site has a place for a blog???  Is there a place on this forum for a blog?

Thanks

 

The Traveler

[zil]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I thought this might be interesting because Joseph Smith used the ancient Egyptian number for infinity (a word I would have typed here but my spelling is so poor I cannot find it in a scripture search) which also is the same term for eternal rather than the modern use of “eternal” from our English language – and then bring in some other interesting concepts concerning ancient titles used by Christ.

I believe you mean Gnolaum, found in Abraham 3.

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

But I do not know if this site has a place for a blog???  Is there a place on this forum for a blog?

Not really, though JohnsonJones has a thread where he posts random thoughts, and CDowis has his YouTube apologetics post, so I suppose if you wanted to, you could make a post with Traveler's Notes on Naught.

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Okay – I will admit to setting a trap for Rob.  I thought he would find a proof on the internet proving Zero as a real number with finite value (thought infinitesimally small but having finite value and thus being what he calls a finite number) and post a link.  All proofs – at least that I am aware of that attempt this; uses the concept of continuity (real number continuous as a function at “0”) which make use of (or define – assume) infinity as a number to employ infinitesimally small numbers (real and with finite value) as we approach “0”.  I have posted about theoretical inconsistencies that have brought about the evolution of number theory because the idea that infinity is a number evolved before the evolution of the number “0”.

This is all very convoluted for someone that does not believe that infinity is a number – because, for example, if we have a defined bounded set of any real numbers that include “0” and divide any of the numbers in the set with the number “0” then we have proof (according to the theory of Algebra) that infinity is a number. 

I have thought of creating a blog about the convergence of number theory with theology and comparing ancient Egyptian number theory with their religious concept of Eternity.  I thought this might be interesting because Joseph Smith used the ancient Egyptian number for infinity (a word I would have typed here but my spelling is so poor I cannot find it in a scripture search) which also is the same term for eternal rather than the modern use of “eternal” from our English language – and then bring in some other interesting concepts concerning ancient titles used by Christ.  But I do not know if this site has a place for a blog???  Is there a place on this forum for a blog?

Thanks

 

The Traveler

The trap would never work. I dont get my understanding from men.

[Vort]

46 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The trap would never work. I dont get my understanding from men.

Which is fine. But then don't use your "understanding", such as it is, to try to refute human constructions like mathematics. Our modern formulation of mathematics is self-consistent, so your attempt to "disprove" it by introducing extraneous definitions and pointing out obvious but irrelevant details (e.g. infinity is not a number) simply do not work. Since you admit that you don't get your understanding from men, you are out of your self-proclaimed element in any such discussion. Therefore, you would be wise not to attempt to debate or refute the understandings and definitions that men have developed over the millennia.

[Rob Osborn]

25 minutes ago, Vort said:

Which is fine. But then don't use your "understanding", such as it is, to try to refute human constructions like mathematics. Our modern formulation of mathematics is self-consistent, so your attempt to "disprove" it by introducing extraneous definitions and pointing out obvious but irrelevant details (e.g. infinity is not a number) simply do not work. Since you admit that you don't get your understanding from men, you are out of your self-proclaimed element in any such discussion. Therefore, you would be wise not to attempt to debate or refute the understandings and definitions that men have developed over the millennia.

I think I get my understanding from aliens, heh heh, or from the 612. I was being silly.

It doesnt really matter, I know infinity isnt a number. If others want to think it is thats fine. 

If you mean self consistant to mean paradox then yes, of course.

[Anddenex]

@The Folk Prophet -- I haven't responded to the original OP and wanted to share thoughts that entered into my heart and mind, which may or may not have already been shared in relation to, "Does the gospel need defending?"

In our scriptures, we receive two witnesses, "And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith." (Source)

And, "And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." (Source)

The phrase that is magnified in this question is the opening statement, "as all have not faith," and is the source of defending the gospel. The worth of souls is great in the eyes of our Heavenly Father. We defend the gospel to protect the "innocent," and to "gather" those who are striving and seeking to find truth (truth=gospel).

We defend the gospel for truth to be promulgated rather than lies for the "one." The gospel, in and of itself, will defend itself come judgement. In life though, we are seeking to defend the gospel that others might more clearly understand pure doctrine, come unto to Christ, and then be saved.

As there are multiple sources that are "opposing" the gospel of Jesus Christ (even those that claim to be defending it), then by law their must be an opposite that opposes/defends the opposition.

We defend the gospel in hopes to develop faith in those that may not have it, to increase the faith of those that faith has sprouted, and to strengthen our own faith in true doctrine, the gospel.

 

Edited November 21, 2017 by Anddenex
their to there

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

@The Folk Prophet -- I haven't responded to the original OP and wanted to share thoughts that entered into my heart and mind, which may or may not have already been shared in relation to, "Does the gospel need defending?"

In our scriptures, we receive two witnesses, "And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith." (Source)

And, "And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." (Source)

The phrase that is magnified in this question is the opening statement, "as all have not faith," and is the source of defending the gospel. The worth of souls is great in the eyes of our Heavenly Father. We defend the gospel to protect the "innocent," and to "gather" those who are striving and seeking to find truth (truth=gospel).

We defend the gospel for truth to be promulgated rather than lies for the "one." The gospel, in and of itself, will defend itself come judgement. In life though, we are seeking to defend the gospel that others might more clearly understand pure doctrine, come unto to Christ, and then be saved.

As their are multiple sources that are "opposing" the gospel of Jesus Christ (even those that claim to be defending it), then by law their must be an opposite that opposes/defends the opposition.

We defend the gospel in hopes to develop faith in those that may not have it, to increase the faith of those that faith has sprouted, and to strengthen our own faith in true doctrine, the gospel.

 

Quadruple thumbs-up. Five stars. 10/10. A+. (Except for your misused "their" -- that gets a C- ).

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Quadruple thumbs-up. Five stars. 10/10. A+. (Except for your misused "their" -- that gets a C- ).

- What? Oh heavens no, go back and check again!

......

......

......

C- upgraded to A+

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

- What? Oh heavens no, go back and check again!

......

......

......

C- upgraded to A+

Thank God for repentance!!!!!

[The Folk Prophet]

4 hours ago, Anddenex said:

@The Folk Prophet -- I haven't responded to the original OP and wanted to share thoughts that entered into my heart and mind, which may or may not have already been shared in relation to, "Does the gospel need defending?"

In our scriptures, we receive two witnesses, "And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith." (Source)

And, "And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." (Source)

The phrase that is magnified in this question is the opening statement, "as all have not faith," and is the source of defending the gospel. The worth of souls is great in the eyes of our Heavenly Father. We defend the gospel to protect the "innocent," and to "gather" those who are striving and seeking to find truth (truth=gospel).

We defend the gospel for truth to be promulgated rather than lies for the "one." The gospel, in and of itself, will defend itself come judgement. In life though, we are seeking to defend the gospel that others might more clearly understand pure doctrine, come unto to Christ, and then be saved.

As there are multiple sources that are "opposing" the gospel of Jesus Christ (even those that claim to be defending it), then by law their must be an opposite that opposes/defends the opposition.

We defend the gospel in hopes to develop faith in those that may not have it, to increase the faith of those that faith has sprouted, and to strengthen our own faith in true doctrine, the gospel.

 

 

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

- What? Oh heavens no, go back and check again!

......

......

......

C- upgraded to A+

Um.