The arithmetic of the title is trivial when given a commensurate look: believer vs. believer = 2 dead believers. (Change to plural and if you can't count to millions, the result will remain a secret to you.)
But the arithmetic rules change w.r.t. the time, and these days, it is possible to wage cyber wars of opinions using fiber optic cables instead of cavalry.
Here is a duel between two believers: Perry Marshall and Mark C. Chu-Carroll. The subject of the dispute is very difficult one: it concerns the interpretation of Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem. I let Marshall shoot first, so you can see the trickery trajectory of the bullet as it tries to hit a target for which Gödel never aimed, even though he was quite a religious person. The trajectory very much resembles the path the Roman Catholic Church has gone to make its philosophical point.
http://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/ (Firefox preferable)
This "thesis" triggered a revolt in the mind of Chu-Carroll to the point of considering weapons of mass destruction, such as the ad hominem missiles, right from the beginning.
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2010/05/03/the-danger-when-you-dont-know/
It's up to you to call the winner...
But, as you suspect, there is an afterthought. The Church holds God omniscient, but the realities are quite different. Witnesses, such as Vincent, say that God sometimes wonders, which is not a good sign of omniscience. And Vincent happened to catch God wondering...
I don't understand this... Do you you understand this?
Understand what?
The way the atheists write my name. They don't capitalize the first letter. That's a breach of the rules given by the grammar and not following the rules leads to lawlessness and anarchy. Do the atheists like anarchy?
I don't think so. I think the habit of not capitalizing the first letter in your name is somewhat symbolic of the relationship between you and them. Unlike them, you don't exist.
But making one letter smaller wouldn't cause me going away.
Well, some atheists hold that you probably don't exist. So if the probability of your existence is small, they write "g" instead of "G".
Yes. That makes sense. But what about those Strong Atheists? They assert that I don't exist at the slightest. Don't you think that the way they write my name doesn't reflect upon their assertion?
If they skip your name in the text entirely, then the editors of respectable magazines may not approve of that symbolism.
But there is way to circumvent the empty space in the text, isn't there?
What way?
Well, absence is rendered by number zero. Since zero is very similar in shape to letter o, why don't the Strong Atheists write G0d instead of God? Isn't that logical?
You know, Heavenly Father, logic and Strong Atheism are two things miles apart. Lol.
So that's the story Vincent told me. This story is particular in separating special from ordinary in Perry Marshall's text. And the special item is
That's a wrong statement, not just because the theorem doesn't say anything like that. The incorrectness of the statement lies in the fact that you don't have to prove existence of something that you and others can see. If circle = o, then what is outside the circle = ..
G ö d
But the arithmetic rules change w.r.t. the time, and these days, it is possible to wage cyber wars of opinions using fiber optic cables instead of cavalry.
Here is a duel between two believers: Perry Marshall and Mark C. Chu-Carroll. The subject of the dispute is very difficult one: it concerns the interpretation of Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem. I let Marshall shoot first, so you can see the trickery trajectory of the bullet as it tries to hit a target for which Gödel never aimed, even though he was quite a religious person. The trajectory very much resembles the path the Roman Catholic Church has gone to make its philosophical point.
http://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/ (Firefox preferable)
This "thesis" triggered a revolt in the mind of Chu-Carroll to the point of considering weapons of mass destruction, such as the ad hominem missiles, right from the beginning.
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2010/05/03/the-danger-when-you-dont-know/
It's up to you to call the winner...
But, as you suspect, there is an afterthought. The Church holds God omniscient, but the realities are quite different. Witnesses, such as Vincent, say that God sometimes wonders, which is not a good sign of omniscience. And Vincent happened to catch God wondering...
I don't understand this... Do you you understand this?
Understand what?
The way the atheists write my name. They don't capitalize the first letter. That's a breach of the rules given by the grammar and not following the rules leads to lawlessness and anarchy. Do the atheists like anarchy?
I don't think so. I think the habit of not capitalizing the first letter in your name is somewhat symbolic of the relationship between you and them. Unlike them, you don't exist.
But making one letter smaller wouldn't cause me going away.
Well, some atheists hold that you probably don't exist. So if the probability of your existence is small, they write "g" instead of "G".
Yes. That makes sense. But what about those Strong Atheists? They assert that I don't exist at the slightest. Don't you think that the way they write my name doesn't reflect upon their assertion?
If they skip your name in the text entirely, then the editors of respectable magazines may not approve of that symbolism.
But there is way to circumvent the empty space in the text, isn't there?
What way?
Well, absence is rendered by number zero. Since zero is very similar in shape to letter o, why don't the Strong Atheists write G0d instead of God? Isn't that logical?
You know, Heavenly Father, logic and Strong Atheism are two things miles apart. Lol.
So that's the story Vincent told me. This story is particular in separating special from ordinary in Perry Marshall's text. And the special item is
That's a wrong statement, not just because the theorem doesn't say anything like that. The incorrectness of the statement lies in the fact that you don't have to prove existence of something that you and others can see. If circle = o, then what is outside the circle = ..
G ö d
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/82/1/012008
Last edited:
