Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldtea | Hacker News Reader

>Let n equal 3 if God exists, or 5 if God does not exist. Is n prime?

Also whether n is prime is up to the will of God, if God exists.

A God is not necessarily bound to the "laws of physics" or even basic logical necessities (a God that does comes from a specific line of theological reasoning, not the general case).

He could even make 6 odd if He so wished - altering all math and logical consistency and the whole universe, or just make just 77 even and every other number odd, making so every mathematician finds the new arrangement perfectly consistent and consider it to always have been the valid one!

So the answer does kind of "depend on your religious beliefs".

View on HN

This is a very good (and funny) response.

If you're allowed to invoke God ironically in the question, you're allowed to take that seriously (meta-ironically?) in the rebuttal!

If god creates a system of logic wherein 3 is not prime, he's welcome to, but creating a new system doesn't affect the old one in the slightest.

>but creating a new system doesn't affect the old one in the slightest.

The idea of "new doesn't affect old" is an idea based on logical and temporal consistency. God is not bound to those.

In fact the current system of odd/even - as well as any other system and law, including the "excluded middle" - can be understood to be God's arbitrary creation. You consider it logically necessary and absolute just because God willed it so, you'd be considering a different one with any arbitrary change as just as logically necessary and absolute if/when God willed it :)

People create a lesser conception of God, with specific boundaries and limitations, and then gloat how he is limited. Well, let's instead start with the more common conception of God as limitless and with total arbitrary power.

>The idea of "new doesn't affect old" is an idea based on logical and temporal consistency. God is not bound to those.

That entirely depends on your specific god belief. Suppose someone believes that god is the eternal principle of consistency?

>Well, let's instead start with the more common conception of God as limitless and with total arbitrary power.

If god is capable of anything can god decide to make it such that there is no god? Can god decide to self-limit god's own powers? If god intrinsically encompasses all possibilities does that include the possibility of godlessness?

You quickly get to then point where the concept ceases having any meaning.

>That entirely depends on your specific god belief

My sentiments exactly.

The whole point of the comment was that the part saying "The answer does not depend on your religious beliefs" was wrong.

>If god is capable of anything can god decide to make it such that there is no god? Can god decide to self-limit god's own powers? If god intrinsically encompasses all possibilities does that include the possibility of godlessness?

Yes. Trivially so. And He can even make it so godlessness involves the presense of God too, without there being any logical inconsistency even (since he's so powerful he shapes logic, not the other way around).

So the answer to "P=NP?" is "Let's see what mood god is in today"?

I think if you believe in one of the omnipotent gods, yea, that is something you believe.

The answer is "God knows!"

He could even make it so that our actions are simultaneously not fully deterministic and also not totally random, which is free will.

Which I believe is the reason why people believe in some kind of deity. Believing of some kind of deity does not exactly answer the question of “why we are here?” but it can be trivially used to argue out this apparent paradox.

Essentially an infinitely powerful god is not a consistent concept. Whether that is a feature or a bug is a matter of opinion.

>>but creating a new system doesn't affect the old one in the slightest.

>The idea of "new doesn't affect old" is an idea based on logical and temporal consistency. God is not bound to those.

I'm not a theologist, but I don't think god recreating the world such that 3 is not prime would affect the discussion if 3 is prime right now.

In fact, I don't think god is even capable of making 3 not prime. Prime numbers are defined such that 3 is prime, it's not possible and a logical contradiction to make 3 composite without changing the definition. And the discussion is about the current definition.

>In fact the current system of odd/even - as well as any other system and law, including the "excluded middle" - can be understood to be God's arbitrary creation

But it's a human creation, god didn't invent parity or formal logic.

> God is not bound to those.

God is bound to His Word and as the saying goes 'it is written':

"Never will you find a change in the way of ALLAH. [Qur'an 33:62]

> Arbitrary creation

"HE created the heavens and the earth in accordance with the requirements of wisdom." [Qur'an 39:5]

p.s. Computing (al-Hesaab) is also addressed. Apparently God and Gauss are both rather fond of harmonic systems:

"HE It Is Who made the sun radiate a brilliant light and the moon reflect a lustre, and ordained for it proper stages, that you might know harmonic measure and mathematics. ALLAH Has not created this system but in accordance with the requirements of truth. HE details the signs for a people who possess knowledge. " [Qur'an 10:5]

> So the answer does kind of "depend on your religious beliefs".

Only if you choose to misinterpret the point.

It's not a matter of interpretation.

Except if they wanted to say "The answer, iff your religious beliefs are conveniently tame and constrained, so that your God has limited powers and is bound to respecting excluded middle, the laws of physics and other such constraints, doesn't depend on your religious beliefs".

That's just like your opinion man

Nope. In a discourse constrained by regular logic, it's a logically consistent argument. Their rules, not mine!

Any other movie quotes to put forward in lieu of counter-arguments?

Invoking a fictitious god with any arbitrary property doesn't make your argument consistent - other then, that's just like your opinion man

>Invoking a fictitious god with any arbitrary property doesn't make your argument consistent

Logical consistency only cares about propositions and their relationship, it doesn't care whether an entity involved in one is fictitious or not.

Pulling the God card is a bit like redefining `true` to false in some very dynamic language. Like, is there a point in asking/answering anything if anything goes?

>Pulling the God card is a bit like redefining `true` to false in some very dynamic language.

Yep. Possible, and endless fun for a certain sort of person!

>Like, is there a point in asking/answering anything if anything goes?

Sure, since at any given time anything God wills goes!

Another point is that it gives Normies practice in modal logic, something they desperately need.

Have you noticed that God being involved in the topic of a conversation seems to cut everyone's IQ by like 50%? And there are other topics that have this effect as well.

Law of excluded middle is a formal logic thing. If you assume law of excluded middle, you can use it for logical deduction. If you don't assume law of excluded middle, you can't. If your axioms are A->B and A then B, and even god can't change that.

In contrast laws of physics are a real world thing, and any omnipotent being can meddle with it, basically by definition.

>If you don't assume law of excluded middle, you can't.

You can't, under your logical constraints.

God has no such constraints, not just in the physical but also in the logical realm. He can make it so that assuming the law of excluded middle and not assuming it at the same time, is compatible and consistent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com