Gesetveemet
Puritan Board Sophomore
Please excuse my ignorance on this subject.
My question is is 3+3=6 an eternal truth?
Thank you,
.
My question is is 3+3=6 an eternal truth?
Thank you,
.
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is three plus three an eternal truth?
1 Kings 2:10-12
So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David. And the days that David reigned over Israel were 40 years: 7 years reigned he in Hebron, and 33 years reigned he in Jerusalem.
Three men went to get a hotel room, and were told it would be a total of $30.00 for all of them - or, $10 apiece. Later the clerk decided that he would would give the guys a break, and refund a total of $5. The bellhop was on his way to their room to deliver the refund, but realized he didn't have the proper change to give an equal amount to each man. So he decided to give each one $1 and to keep $2 for himself (Yes, that would be a violation of the 8th Commandment, but this is only a mental exercise, people...) So, the men spent $9 each for the room ($10 initially <-> $1 refund = $9), and the bellhop kept $2. But then where is the "other" dollar ($9 X 3 = $27 + $2 = $29)?
The numbers in the equation are only symbolic representations of the abstract entities and there are assumptions in the operation (i.e., the properties of addition are axiomatic; equality is also an assumption and can have different meanings in different contexts).
There are also limits to mathematics -- not necessarily because numerical principles are flawed, but because our understanding of them is limited and incomplete. We have a difficult time comprehending infinity, for instance. The existence of irrational numbers is difficult for some.
Or try to wrap your brain around this one: 0.9 as a repeating decimal (that would be 0.9 with a line over the nine, but I don't know how to represent that on here) approaches 1 in value, but it does not equal one. Yet consider the following equations:
First, an easy one: N = .3 (non-repeating)
Then, by multiplication, 10N = 3.0
By subtraction:
10N = 3.0
N = 0.3
Making 9N = 2.7
Thus (by division), N = 2.7/9 or 27/90, which equals 3/10.
We have just shown that 0.3 = 3/10.
Now try N = 0.3 (this time, a repeating decimal).
10N = 3.3 (still repeating)
N = 0.3 (repeating)
Making 9N = 3
So N = 3/9 or 1/3
We have just shown that 0.3 (repeating) = 1/3. So far, so good.
Now consider N = 0.9 (repeating)
10N = 9.9
N = 0.9
If we subtract, we get:
9N = 9
Thus, N = 1.
So we started with N = 0.9 (repeating) and ended with N = 1. Thus, 0.9 (repeating) = 1.
Pastor Ben, speaking in tongues does not necessarily mean he has a "familiar" spirit. It could just mean he's reading a bit too much Grudem. Either way, throw some holy water on him if you see Pastor Tim coming near.
To the original question, I would ask whether God could create the world such that 2+2 does not equal 4.
To the original question, I would ask whether God could create the world such that 2+2 does not equal 4.
Does this then become another way of stating the "can God create a rock so big He can't move it" fallacy?
More or less, since a world where 2+2 does not equal 4 is just as logically absurd as a world that contains a rock too big for an omnipotent being to lift.
Given that these math rules are based upon axioms, I think it is indeed possible for a reality in which 2 + 2 does not equal 4.
All that is required is a different definition. If "+" means combine the terms and replicate one of them too, rather than merely "combine" the terms, then 2 + 2 = 6.
Given that these math rules are based upon axioms, I think it is indeed possible for a reality in which 2 + 2 does not equal 4.
All that is required is a different definition. If "+" means combine the terms and replicate one of them too, rather than merely "combine" the terms, then 2 + 2 = 6.
A different symbolic notation of the numerals could also generate this. "2" is merely a symbol for "two-ness." If "4" were a symbol for "three-ness," then you could have a situation where 2 + 2 does not equal 4. But all you done is redefined things. The concept of "two-ness" added to "two-ness" is still equivalent to "four-ness" (if we are going with the accepted axiom of addition ).
Well, yes, I agree. I thought I admitted that by calling it an equivocation.
I would say that it is also impossible for God to commit a logical fallacy
If no identity, then all we have is absurdity and might as well just play backgammon.
Agreed. God can do whatever is consistent with His nature. There are things He cannot do (e.g., He cannot lie -- Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). Hence, it is a logical absurdity to claim that God should be able to do all things, which is part of the problem with those kinds of arguments. I would say that it is also impossible for God to commit a logical fallacy and, in keeping with the discussion in the OP, it would be impossible for God to commit a mathematical error.