5 ms·

I generally don't like discussing religion on HN, so apologies if I decline to respond to a reply, but the description of God in the Bible doesn't really fit wi

I generally don't like discussing religion on HN, so apologies if I decline to respond to a reply, but the description of God in the Bible doesn't really fit with Spinoza's God for the mere fact that evil is wholly set apart. It exists within demons and humans but it does not exist within God. The logic of an entity with infinite attributes being God is true, but just as the natural numbers are infinite but do not contain negative integers so does the existence of an infinite Divine not contain all attributes. Besides, some attributes cannot be co-existent anyway, at least not without breaking logic and mathematics. A man cannot turn 20 years old and 120 years old at the same time, for example. That said, I'm not fully sure because there are some escape valves. Matthew 19:26 or Romans 8:28, for example. But one of the reasons I don't like talking about religion on HN is that I've found a computer science centric way of thinking about some sub branches of philosophy and theology is a dead end. We're used to dealing with such pedantry and strict logic that I find we over use them in places where they're not nearly as useful as they seem.

nanis 5y ago
> natural numbers are infinite but do not contain negative integers While Z is not a subset of N, N maps 1-1, onto to Z (i.e., they have the same cardinality). That means every element of one set has a corresponding element in the other and vice versa. Similarly, ismorphisms, homeomorphisms, diffeomorphisms are formalizations of the idea of "different but equivalent in the relevant structures". I do not have a deeper point to make, but I think your intro argument is not as solid as you might imagine. Plus, things get weird when you go beyond discrete infinities and into the continuum and beyond.
kmmlng 5y ago
> But one of the reasons I don't like talking about religion on HN is that I've found a computer science centric way of thinking about some sub branches of philosophy and theology is a dead end. We're used to dealing with such pedantry and strict logic that I find we over use them in places where they're not nearly as useful as they seem. Fair enough. I like discussing religion in circles like this one, because I'm convinced there is a lot of value to be found in religious traditions, but I find it hard to connect to the typical religious crowd.
tablespoon 5y ago
> But one of the reasons I don't like talking about religion on HN is that I've found a computer science centric way of thinking about some sub branches of philosophy and theology is a dead end. We're used to dealing with such pedantry and strict logic that I find we over use them in places where they're not nearly as useful as they seem. And not just that. I feel that many of the habits of thinking that lead to success in software engineering actually have pretty limited applicability, but too many software engineer internet commenters parochially assume those habits are superior and universally applicable. It's hard for me to articulate though, because I have those same habits and it's hard to see outside one's limitations.
DennisP 5y ago
> A man cannot turn 20 years old and 120 years old at the same time Interesting example, because he could get in a spaceship at age 19, travel out and back at very high speeds, and arrive back at Earth 101 years later having aged just one year. He turned 20 and 120 at the same time. I realize I've turned myself into a prime example of the pedantry you mentioned, but what I mean to say is that strict logic can be misleading if we don't have the whole picture, which we probably don't.
mbrodersen 5y ago
I am not religious however I find religion fascinating because it clearly has had a massive impact on the history and evolution of humankind. Understanding why that is the case (independently of whether you believe in a God or not) makes it something worth discussing I think. Unless of course the discussion diverges into a “here is proof that what I believe is true” argument which is a waste of time.

nanis 5y ago

> natural numbers are infinite but do not contain negative integers While Z is not a subset of N, N maps 1-1, onto to Z (i.e., they have the same cardinality). That means every element of one set has a corresponding element in the other and vice versa. Similarly, ismorphisms, homeomorphisms, diffeomorphisms are formalizations of the idea of "different but equivalent in the relevant structures". I do not have a deeper point to make, but I think your intro argument is not as solid as you might imagine. Plus, things get weird when you go beyond discrete infinities and into the continuum and beyond.

kmmlng 5y ago

> But one of the reasons I don't like talking about religion on HN is that I've found a computer science centric way of thinking about some sub branches of philosophy and theology is a dead end. We're used to dealing with such pedantry and strict logic that I find we over use them in places where they're not nearly as useful as they seem. Fair enough. I like discussing religion in circles like this one, because I'm convinced there is a lot of value to be found in religious traditions, but I find it hard to connect to the typical religious crowd.

tablespoon 5y ago

> But one of the reasons I don't like talking about religion on HN is that I've found a computer science centric way of thinking about some sub branches of philosophy and theology is a dead end. We're used to dealing with such pedantry and strict logic that I find we over use them in places where they're not nearly as useful as they seem. And not just that. I feel that many of the habits of thinking that lead to success in software engineering actually have pretty limited applicability, but too many software engineer internet commenters parochially assume those habits are superior and universally applicable. It's hard for me to articulate though, because I have those same habits and it's hard to see outside one's limitations.

DennisP 5y ago

> A man cannot turn 20 years old and 120 years old at the same time Interesting example, because he could get in a spaceship at age 19, travel out and back at very high speeds, and arrive back at Earth 101 years later having aged just one year. He turned 20 and 120 at the same time. I realize I've turned myself into a prime example of the pedantry you mentioned, but what I mean to say is that strict logic can be misleading if we don't have the whole picture, which we probably don't.

mbrodersen 5y ago

I am not religious however I find religion fascinating because it clearly has had a massive impact on the history and evolution of humankind. Understanding why that is the case (independently of whether you believe in a God or not) makes it something worth discussing I think. Unless of course the discussion diverges into a “here is proof that what I believe is true” argument which is a waste of time.