that sounds like double talk... there is only one definition of perfect, not 2 or 3.... human perfect, god perfect, someone just made that up just to rationalize why god is not perfect...

Is that your opinion?

What does "godly perfect" mean?

P.S.
We are like god according to the Bible.

"Let us make man in our image."

So said the Elohim.

really? the english language is pretty complex...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect


and IM sure, in biblical times, there may have even been a different human standard of perfect than the above

so, there is more than one definition of perfect, and the use of the word AS, implies a specific type of perfect to which we are to strive

yes, its my opinion

also, in my opinion, manly perfection usually implies a standard in which people have none of the things man considers 'faults' or 'defects'

in fact, that is one standard definition of the word
a : being entirely without fault or defect


but what man considers a fault or defect is subjective to mans judgment

so a Godly perfect has more to do with Gods judgment than mans,,,,

no, the word didn't exist in biblical times... the link says it's first known use was in the 14th century... so, ok god isn't perfect, still means very little to me..lol

I don't follow this. You say we can imagine it, and therefore it's impossible? Why can't it be possible? I think a counter argument's job is to state how a claim is impossible, and its job is not to state that it's not necessarily possible.

Once you place an atom, yes, there are restrictions on the placements of other atoms. But if you move this one firstly placed atom, then the others are restricted in a different way from the first set-up.

If you populate a table with three balls, which have hefty two-dimensional expanses, (when viewed from above, as to ignore the third dimension, and see the balls by their projections on the table surface) which cannot cover each other, then there is still infinite number of ways that the fininte number of balls can be laid down on the table or can occupy positions.

I say this because if you take planck space of minimum movement distance, it does not exclude any geometrical (zero dimensional) point as occupiable on the table.

If the balls could change their movement direction only in right angles, then yes, there would be no shorter distance occupiable by the centre of a ball than a planck space away. But balls bounce all kinds of degrees from each other, and this creates not minimum movements shorter than one planck space, but still, it creates occupational distances, although not in consecutive moments or planck times, that are shorter distances away from each other than one planck space.

Incidentally, if balls could change directions only by 60 degrees at any time, that would also be true. But if you allow balls to change once 90 degrees, and at another time 60 degrees, then the planck space is no longer the minimum positional distance a piece of matter can occupy in subsequent times. (But obviously not adjacent subsequent times.)

That is what I hoped you guys would understand.

From here we can see that shorter distances can be used for occupational positions of the balls, and hence, we can reduce this distance to a point, which can be found in infinite numbers the table.

There are a few assumptions that people made on my model, which I did not make.

1. I did not restrict the balls to zero dimension point size. The balls can stay real-size. Then the obvious is to imagine one particular point on the balls, which could be their geometrical centre, for instance.

To further explain how this makes no difference:
2. When two balls collide, there are a lot of points, or there is a large area, which the centres of the balls never cover in their two-dimensional projection onto the table. However, there will be collisions occurring on all points in the oncovered area, since the collisions in the future will happen on different spots, like half a ball radius away northwest, or third a ball radius south, etc., away from the original collision here discussed.

3. The balls' centre points have no restrictions on any geometrical point on the table which they can't cover. There is an infinite number of geometrical points on the table. Therefore a table with three balls bouncing off each other on it will have an infinite number of combination of balls.

4. The only restriction of covered points on the table is that the surface of the table which is a little less than a ball's radius away from the bounce-guard inside bumper wall of the table, are restricted from the ball's centres passing over them. This is so becasue the balls can't get closer to the rigid walls than at least one ball radius away. the rigid side of the table is lined with rubbery, bouncing material, which "gives" when it decelares a ball by contracting, and then accelerates the ball back to the table as it reexpands.

I made one assumption too. This is the assumption that when a body moves in a straight line, and changes direction to another straight line which cover an angle which is not 90 degrees or any integer multiple of 90 degrees, then the ball or an object moves in that straight line. This is an assumption, which is unnecessary to most, but I say why I make it: if you draw a straight line on a computer screen, then the line progresses in a zig-zag, always keeping a general direction, but moving from pixel to pixel only in 90 or -90 or in 0 (zero) degree turns. This is so because pixels are arranged on the screen in a geometrically strict row-column fashion.

If, and only if, in reality the movement of an object would zig-zag on a square- or regular triangularly patterned fashion, only apporximating the to us apparent travel direction, then it would be possible to say that not all points (geometrical points) will be covered on the table by the the balls or their centres.

This assumption is not necessitated by our knowledge of physics. It is not necessary to make at all, as there is no reason to believe that things move in a right-angle zig-zag only because our screens are squarely laid out by pixels.

This is an assumption nevertheless, because it is possible that it will be discovered in the future that this is the only way things can progress in movement.

However, until such time that it becomes known that planck movement is not freely angular, my argument stands, which is that three or any finite number of balls that fit there to allow the bouncing on a finite area sized table have the potential of comprizing an infinite number combinations of distinct and non-identical set of locational arrangements of the balls on the table.

yes, this particular word was used in fourteenth century, just like 'jiggy' was used in the last fifty years,, but its synonymous with words used before then,,,,,

just as the word used in the bible has the same interpretation as the word PERFECT,,,

but its ok if it means little to you, thats your perogative for certain

I discovered that I did not have any faults after I divorced my Husband.

No no no no I said nothing of the kind.



Well it could be, but my understanding of the best theories we have for the nature of reality implies that it's not.



If my goal was to prove to you that your conclusion was false, then yes you are right. My goal was only to establish that your argument need not be valid. This is a perfectly valid form of counter-argument, for people who are comfortable with "I don't know the final answer, but I know that this isn't necessarily true".

You say that Alice definitely killed Bob, because Alice's fingerprints are on the gun.

I point out that Alice owned the gun, and that it was stolen from her beforehand - so she could have left the fingerprints on the gun well before the murder.

I don't disprove that Alice killed Bob, I simply disprove the notion that fingerprints guarantee culpability.




I'm not sure that the bolded section is the correct interpretation of the planck length. An introductory physics text once represented the planck length in this way, but later conversations with physics researchers suggested to me that this is a misleading way of conceiving of the planck length. It's been a long time, and I haven't re-studied the subject.



All of this is exactly consistent with how I interpreted your first summary of the argument.




Yes, there are an infinite number of points - geometrically, mathematically - on the table... but it looks like reality isn't impressed by this fact. The number of geometric points is irrelevant - the number of physically allowable positions is all that matters.

As I said earlier, I believe you are making a perfectly valid geometric argument - but I don't believe it leads to the conclusion that there are an infinite number of allowable positions in reality.



I agree that your argument is valid in geometry, but assert that this need not apply to reality.


If you'd like a better 'counter argument', maybe in the next week I'll find time to review some of what I've forgotten about the implications of the planck length, and pick up this dialog again.

Creation vs. Evolution is a false dichotomy.

Evolution is creation. There is no need for them to be in opposition.
Google "False Dilemmma" it is a fallacy and an error in logic.



Creating only a mirage of a conflict which serves no purpose.

What i'm not understanding is why do Muschristews accept that God created the universe?

1)the universe is freaking huge
2)mostly the universe does nothing but destroy and create itself
3)theres 7 other planets in our solar system.
4)quasars are the beginning developement of galaxies
5)some blackholes are the beginning of a quasar
6)a star collapsing in on itself becomes a blackhole
7)A sun or star birth place is in a stellar nursery(nebula)
8)a nebula is gas and particles thats left over from a star that exploded
9)why in the hell would God create all of the above?What purpose does it serve?If he created everything why does the other chaos and order happen beyond our own galaxy?Hell whats the purpose for everything other than our planet,the moon and the sun?I believe that some people can't accept that when you die thats it,so in return Gods/God was created for order and for an afterlife purpose.It just got a bit out of control.

That is actually a very easy question.
"The Creator" is the definition of God in most religions
so God is by definition - the force behind all creation.

So basically your typing that God can be anything,so science can say the big bang is God?Oh i see anyone at anytime can call anything god.Kind of like when i say Neil Peart is God of the drums.But it still doesn't answer why the need for a big huge universe and the purpose behind it.

You are absolutely right. This need not apply in reality. But that does not say anything. You are refuting it on the basis that it is not necesssarily true.

But in empirical sciences that applies to every scientific statement. That includes theories, facts, and discoveries.

----------

If it is not necesserily true, then it is also true that it's not necessarily false.

If you want to reject the theory, you must show that it's necessarily impossible. I look forward to your more in-depth criticism next week.

Please understand that I enjoy criticism, as long as it is not tedious, and as long as it is not based on personal bias but only what can be argued with facts and logical superstructures based on the facts.

For your research, another way of looking at this is that if at least one non-rational multiple of a planck length can be said to exist, which NEED NOT BE LESS than one one planck length, at all, then that's enough to show that the model is probable.

So your task is, may I say, to show that there is no way that a body's one point can move away from its origin to a distance away which is a non-rational multiplier of a planck-length away. You show that, and I capitulate. Please observe that movement away from the origin does not mean in a straight line, but also can mean to be moving away along any zig-zaged or curved path.

By non-rational I mean of course fractions that can't be expressed as a fraction of two integers. Examples: Square root of two, pi, e, etc. etc.

It's simple. A Planck length is a point. You can't travel across a point. You are either at that point or your aren't. You can't find space between two points, there is no space there. The point is the smallest possible size. You can't get any smaller. Reality doesn't get more granular than the Planck length.

Massagetrade, I read your post since my first response.

Please look into this: nothing is necessarily true in empirical sciences, other than the existence of the mind. "Cogito ergo sum". Beyond this there is not much you can say that is necessarily true of the world. There is something you can say, still, but not much, and that is "there is something out there aside from my mind" and then, bang, that's it, there is nothing more you can say that is necessarily true of the physical world.

Scientists know this. They make no pretense about it. In fact, one of the criteria demanded of any scientific theory to qualify as such, is for it to leave itself vulnerable to proof that destroys it.

So I don't know why you are so very adamant on saying that the way I showed that there are infinite positions on the table for three balls, is not necessarily true. In the exact same sense gravity is not necessarily true. If you let go of a ball of some mass and it accelerates up, and then stops at a point above the surface of the earth, and there are no known forces that would precipitate this (such as magnetic forces, or an upcurrent, etc.) then that would be evidence that would destroy the theory of gravitational pull.

We never see this happen, and likely never will. So the theory stands, but it is not impossbile, that it might happen one day.

Your critical philosophy of trying to prove that the balls can take up an infinite variety of positions on a finite table is not necessarily true is... I don't know how to say it... superfluous? Redundant? It is ALREADY given that it is not necessarily true... but it is considered to be true until a contrary proof is found.

So I really don't understand what you want to do here. Care to explain?

I mean, we all accept gravitational pull to be true EXACTLY because no contrary proof has been found yet. Yet we know it is not necessarily true, but we accept it as such.

So... what is it you want to say, exactly? I am totally at loss of knowing what you mean to do. Because there is no way you need to spend a week to prove to me that this set-up is not necessarily true. I know that right now. I won't contest that. But I won't capitulate to anyone saying it's necessarily false, until they show me proof (via facts or via valid logical arguments) that the theorem must be necessarily false.

To show, again, that it's not necessarily true, is not necessary. I admit to that right now.

A king's glory is represented by his throne. The Bible calls the universe God's throne. The purpose of the entire universe is to put us in awe of God's glory.

Many early Jews didn't believe in an afterlife, so that sort of breaks your theory on the evolution of religion. Jesus was pulled into a debate between the Pharisees and Sadducees on just that subject.

Somebody said something about the granularity of space dotted up into bits of planck-spaces... I don't talk to the poster who said that, but I can rip that argument in a few sentences. If someone wants to dialogue about that with me, with the sole exception of the person I never wish to talk to and converse with, then please let me know.

The word "perfect is "tamiym" in classical Hebrew. It means "complete, whole, entire, sound", which to the Hebrews meant "perfect".



The word "perfect" is "teleios" in classical Greek. It means "perfect".

I'm fairly certain that your link says the English word perfect didn't exist until the 14th century, but I didn't bother to find the link and check. Regardless, the word "perfect" existed when Deuteronomy was written around the 8th or 7th century BCE and when Matthew was written in the 1st Century AD.