Common Creationist Arguments - Morality

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Morality.shtml ^

[The_Reader_David]

I have absolutely no desire to defend Islam, which persecuted my coreligionists for centuries. I regard it, like St. John of Damascus, as a humanly constructed Christian heresy. I was merely willing to be charitable to the other side, and allow it to count against monotheism in the current discussion.

Actually almost all the dead attributable to monotheism have been killed by adherents of movements my own confession, the Orthodox Church, regard as heretical: Latin Christianity (RC and protestant), with their Crusades, Inquisition, wars of religion in Europe, witch trials and the like, and Islam.

I will be fair, and accept against my own confession those killed by the Nitrian monks (though accuracy might attribute those deaths to monophysitism, rather than Orthodoxy), the war dead in Emperor Heraclitus campaign to stablize the Imperial frontier against the Persians and recapture the True Cross (though power politics would have necessated a war at that time, I am always willing to accept it as the sole instance of an Orthodox nation launching an offensive war of religion), the dead in various persecutions when the Russian state meddled in Church affairs (pogroms and the persecution of the Old Believers), and the dead in the various Balkan wars from 1821 to the present (though nationalism would suffice to explain them without reference to religion).

Even being generous to your side in accepting all of these as attributable to my confession, I think the dead from all these over thousands of years are still dwarfed by the dead attributable to secularism in America alone--counting only victims of abortion on demand.

[AndrewC]

If infinity is considered to be greater than zero, the larger the positive number, the "closer" to infinity it is.

How many integers evenly divisible by two lie between 1 and 100? How many integers evenly divisible by 29 lie between 1 and 100? Which group is "larger"?(cardinality) Now which of a group(set) so described is "larger" when applied to all positive integers?

[Hajman]

If infinity is considered to be greater than zero, the larger the positive number, the "closer" to infinity it is.

This is incorrect in the strict concept of the term. There's no such thing as 'closer', because closer assumes a finite measurement of distance (in this case, numeral) in order to compare two different numbers to a specific measurement. However, when a finite number is compared to infinite, it literally has an infinite distance. Each and every number. This is because one can't measure infinite on an infinite scale (by definition). -The Hajman-

[Hajman]

Correction:

This is because one can't measure infinite on a finite scale (by definition)

-The Hajman-

[AndrewC]

The set of all integers is provably larger than the set of all even integers, even though both sets have an infinite number of elements.

I believe this is wrong.

I'm infinity, you're infinity. Are we the same infinity?

Let us return to our question: Are there as many even integers as integers? Since we can match every integer n to a single even integer 2n, we must concede that there are the same number of each. The matching is called a one-to-one correspondence. Infinite sets can have one-to-one correspondences with "smaller-looking" subsets of themselves. Of course, this can never happen with finite sets--one will never match 14 objects one for one with any 9 of them. This difference is in fact a fundamental difference between finite sets and infinite sets. We may rest assured that our two questions:

• How many positive integers are there?
• How many even positive integers are there?

do indeed have the same answer, which we've called .

There are, however, different infinities.

[general_re]

Thus, the difference between Cantor's proofs and "common sense" ;)

Can a subset of elements be as large or larger than the set that contains it, if the set contains elements not within the subset? Anyway, the real problem here is trying to treat "infinity" as though it were a number....

[general_re]

Whoops, cut myself off. But anyway, the cardinality of some infinite sets is demonstrably greater than the cardinality of some other infinite sets....

...he said, bailing himself out at the last moment ;)

[The_Reader_David]

Actually, the set of even natural numbers and the set of natural numbers are the same size of infinite set: the match up 1-1 (doubling natural numbers matches them to even natural numbers, halving even natural numbers matches them to all natural numbers). It is the defining property of an infinite set that it can be matched up with a proper subset of itself, i.e. you can throw some away and still have just as many.

There are, however, different sizes of infinite sets. The simplest example is to consider the set of natural numbers, {0,1,2,3,...} (I follow the example of mathematical logicians rather than grade school teachers in calling 0 a natural number).

Now consider also the set of all subsets of the natural numbers. I claim that we cannot match these sets up 1-1, because any attempt to do so misses some subset:

Suppose we've tried, we match every number n with a subset of the natural numbers S(n). No matter how this was done, we have missed a subset:

Let M(S) (for missed by the list S) be the set of all natural numbers n such that n is not an element of S(n).

Now, M(S) can't be any set in the list S(n), since if we think it's the kth set S(k), there's a problem: if k is in M(S), that means it's not in S(k), so they aren't the same set--one contains k the other doesn't. On the other hand if k is not in M(S), that means it's in S(k), so they aren't the same set--again one contains k the other doesn't.

This annoying fact was discovered by Georg Cantor, whose proof I just presented. A similar proof shows that there are more real numbers than natural numbers (though the rational numbers--ones which can be written as fractions--match up with the natural numbers), and that the set of subsets of any set always has more elements than the orginal set.

[JediGirl]

I've read plenty of Dawkins and his opinions are well, his opinions.

[AndrewC]

But anyway, the cardinality of some infinite sets is demonstrably greater than the cardinality of some other infinite sets....

Quite!! The following link gives, for me, a most interesting and pleasing picture of the weirdness of infinity.

Welcome to the Hotel Infinity!

[JediGirl]

Here you go, dear

non·sen·si·cal
adj.

1.Lacking intelligible meaning: a nonsensical jumble of words.
2.Foolish; absurd: nonsensical ideas.

ir·ra·tion·al
adj.

1. a.Not endowed with reason.
b.Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c.Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.

[f.Christian]

Jedigorlye...ok---my 10 year old dilemma...

I'm from a big family---one of the oldest and my younger brother and sisters asked if me if there was a Santa Claus---

I hated to break ther hearts---but I told them---NO!

[wwjdn]

Your your knowledge of the Word of God and views are so corrupted/biased and I won't waste my time with a rebuttal. Go in Peace and may God forgive you.

[f.Christian]

Also ask your science teacher and guideance counselar if Truth is relative or absolute!

[Gargantua]

The bible predicts that 2,000,000 will attack Israel, and God will kill them all. This will be in the Last Days, right as the Tribulation begins. Then, much of the world's population will be destroyed in a global earthquake. Be sure to get a good seat, it'll be quite a show... and only those who believe in Jesus Christ will be lifted out in the Rapture (missing that show).

I'm among those who'll have to miss it. But, you will really enjoy what comes next... the plagues, the seals broken, the bowls tipped, the Mark of the Beast, and the rise of the Antichrist.

Enjoy.

[Phaedrus]

I've read plenty of Dawkins and his opinions are well, his opinions.

Well, this is progress of a sort, I suppose.

[jennyp]

IOW, the world will start to resemble a series of clumsily written crank-em-out niche-market novels? :-)

[Gargantua]

Far worse even than that. Bank on it. ;-/

[Virginia-American]

"Secular Humanist" Darwinism was embraced by both Hitler and Stalin. Case closed.

Don't know about Adolf, but Stalin embraced a form of Lamarckism, namely Lysenko's foolishness, which was actually based on communist theory.

[Capt Phoenix]

Ummm....So...Other than demonstrating the author's point that the God you beleive in is a homicidal maniac who'll torture those who don't swear to serve him in rather gruesomely horrible ways for a thousand years...Other than that....Did you have a point with the Revelation stuff?