KnightofChrist Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 16 2006, 08:57 PM']KnightofChrist, your non-answer to this very important question merely says how many will The question is how many could, how many have the capacity to. Angels have free will, so the question is if all the angels in heaven wanted to dance on the one tip of the same needle, how many would be able to. Paphnitus, a better way is to say angels are immaterial and this is a material thing (corporeal means of the flesh, which a needle is not). Yes, angels are immaterial and thus by their essence and nature take up no space. However, we know from scripture that they have been known to enter the material world, to appear in the material world. Meaning they have the capacity to enter the material world. So how many can enter the material world at the point of the very tip of the needle? "can" as in, have the capacity to. Can more than one angel enter the material world at the same point? I argue no, a spiritual being which is non-material by nature, when entering into the arena of the earth which is unnatural to it, must follow the rules of the material world and so no two things can exist at the same point, and no two angels even if by nature they take up zero space can be at the same point in space. [right][snapback]889932[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Angels have free will yes but only the holy ones do the will of God, if it is not in the will of God for angels to dance on the end of a pin then no holy angel would do so. Plus the question can not be truly answered without frist answering the questions "How many Angels are there?" and "Why would God want them to dance on a pin?" Because without knowing the number of Angels in the first place theres no way in know how many would dance on a pin. And we know from scripture holy angels do only the will of God. ANd yes Angels have entered the material world but only by the will of God, God sent them they did not enter on their own, indepently. They where sent by God and the angels freely choose to obey. So thats proof, unless God willed the angels to dance on the end of a pin, they would not. If God wills it so, then as many Angels God willed to dance on the end of a pin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 so presupposing it was in His will to allow the angel to dance on the tip of a needle... and some group of playful angels wanted to try it... how many of them would be able to dance on the tip at the same time? one, based upon all the arguments above how many angels there are is thus irrelevent, because only one of them can do it at the same time even if they all wanted to. but you could take the position that "all angels" could do it at the same time, but I argue that that is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 17 2006, 03:25 PM']so presupposing it was in His will to allow the angel to dance on the tip of a needle... and some group of playful angels wanted to try it... how many of them would be able to dance on the tip at the same time? one, based upon all the arguments above how many angels there are is thus irrelevent, because only one of them can do it at the same time even if they all wanted to. but you could take the position that "all angels" could do it at the same time, but I argue that that is wrong. [right][snapback]890692[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Irrelevent? LOL this whole "debate" is irrelevent. But if you presuppose that it is God's will for His angels to dance on a needle and a group wanted to try, that would add proof that at least more than one could dance on the needle, because if a "group" of angels wanted to, and angels only want to do the will of God, and it was the will of God for this group of angels to dance on the end of the needle then the whole group could since it is the will of God. But if the group of Angels is all the angels then all the angels could, but how many angels are there? And the group is not all the angels how many angels are in the group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 18, 2006 Author Share Posted February 18, 2006 it could be all the angels if you think that many could be at the TIP of a needle at the same time I don't like the way you talk about the angels. God does not have to actively will them to dance on the tip of a needle. If it is not contrary to His will then any playful little angel could do it if they wanted. but how many could do it at the same time? well, the absolute tip of a needle is only one point, one location. no matter what size you map that location out to be, it is one location. if two things were in that spot, there would two points in space, only one of those points could be the tip, the apex. therefore, only one angel can dance on the tip of a needle at one time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 17 2006, 06:07 PM']it could be all the angels if you think that many could be at the TIP of a needle at the same time I don't like the way you talk about the angels. God does not have to actively will them to dance on the tip of a needle. If it is not contrary to His will then any playful little angel could do it if they wanted. but how many could do it at the same time? well, the absolute tip of a needle is only one point, one location. no matter what size you map that location out to be, it is one location. if two things were in that spot, there would two points in space, only one of those points could be the tip, the apex. therefore, only one angel can dance on the tip of a needle at one time. [right][snapback]890788[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I disagree, I stand by my statement. As many angels as God wanted to stand on a tip of a needle could stand on a tip of a needle. Trying to apply human laws to the divine and supernatral is seriously flawed. Angels could be any size they needed to be, for as many needed to be on the tip of a needle. But an angel would at least have to ask God before standing on a tip of a needle. Where do needles exist? Earth. Where would an angel have to come to get or stand on the tip of a needle? Earth. And to come to earth the angel or angels must be sent by God. It must be His will for them to come to earth, because every angel that has ever come to earth was sent by God. But most importantly what purpose does it serve for a angel or angels to stand on the end of a needle? None. An angels only duty is to serve, worship and give gorly to God. Plus help in the salvation of man. Standing on a tip of a needle is none of the dutys of a angel. It would be pointless. So the real question is how many would stand on the tip of a needle? Answer none. It serves no relevent purpose to the gorly of God. So again the answer is none can, because none would. Unless God wills it, then the answer is as many God wills. Edited February 18, 2006 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 18, 2006 Author Share Posted February 18, 2006 you've completely de-personalized angels then. angels have their own personalities and intellects. their dancing on the tip of a needle can simply be a jolly good game for them, and God would be thus pleased. the tip of a needle is the absolute apex of a needle. there is only one absolute apex of a needle. it is a point. it doesn't matter if the angels became smaller than quarks, if they stand side by side they occupy two seperate points, two seperate locations. if one of them is occupying the point of the tip of the needle, then the other one cannot be. he will be slightly beside the tip of the needle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 17 2006, 07:03 PM']you've completely de-personalized angels then. angels have their own personalities and intellects. their dancing on the tip of a needle can simply be a jolly good game for them, and God would be thus pleased. the tip of a needle is the absolute apex of a needle. there is only one absolute apex of a needle. it is a point. it doesn't matter if the angels became smaller than quarks, if they stand side by side they occupy two seperate points, two seperate locations. if one of them is occupying the point of the tip of the needle, then the other one cannot be. he will be slightly beside the tip of the needle. [right][snapback]890842[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Just because angels have personalities and intellects, doesnt mean their going around dancing on needles. They have a greater purpose than that. Your understanding of the apex of the needle seems to be flawed, one million microscopic cells would fit on the apex of a needle. Yet only one angel could dance on it? Edited February 18, 2006 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maria Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Al, are you dealing with a mathematical, nonexistant needle, or with a real needle? Somehow I don't think real needles narrow into a point infinitely (if you know what I mean), so the tip would have a surface area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 18, 2006 Author Share Posted February 18, 2006 well of course, I don't think an angel is going to pick anything less than the perfect needle upon which to do his dancing! but on a real needle, the absolute center of the surface area of that needle is the absolute apex of it. anyway, I don't believe God is so eternally serious. I propose that humor and joy and mirth are all good things, and as such it is possible God created one million angels just for the purpose of dancing on the tips of needles. it's just as plausible as saying that he created a group of medieval theologians with intellects that asked the question of how many angels could dance on the tip of a needle! back to the point/needle dillema... I think that this ancient debate has always been about how many angels could fit in one point. The medievals didn't have a concept of atoms and quarks... and the knowledge of infinitely small things they had was from an ancient greek philosopher who used that to prove that all motion was impossible (actually, I think that guy was onto something we didn't pick back up until Einstein! what was his name, started with a "P" I think... hmm) so yeah, the tip of a needle was an example one point in space they were arguing about, as far as I can tell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 17 2006, 08:29 PM']but on a real needle, the absolute center of the surface [/quote] But that apex would still be quantifiable no? Any Al try this one on for size...(yes I have resorted to attempting everything to debunk your theory) If this perfect apex is a point, then nothing else be able to occupy it since the point itself is occupied by the apex. No two things cannot occupy the same point, so the point on the tip of the needle is occupied by the needle itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 18, 2006 Author Share Posted February 18, 2006 "apex" is not a thing, it is a describer of the point. points are locations in space. we name a point the apex and then say what occupies that point. the apex is not quantifiable, you can take it down to the smallest quantifiable shape you can imagine, and the apex would still be the center of that quantifiable shape. : can't catch me I'm the gingerbread man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 17 2006, 10:09 PM']"apex" is not a thing, it is a describer of the point. points are locations in space. we name a point the apex and then say what occupies that point. the apex is not quantifiable, you can take it down to the smallest quantifiable shape you can imagine, and the apex would still be the center of that quantifiable shape.[right][snapback]890925[/snapback][/right] [/quote]And if I asked you to show me the apex of a physical needle? [quote] : can't catch me I'm the gingerbread man. [/quote]Oh I will...and your gumdrop buttons! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 18, 2006 Author Share Posted February 18, 2006 I'd point to the tip, for that is where the apex is. but tiny sub-atomic angels that both find themselves in the very wide area of the thickness of my finger pointing, or even the thickness of the needle, do not both meet the qualifications of being on the apex. it's the exact top and center of the needle. a center, a point, a tip, can all be expressed as theoretical immeasurable constructions relative to the size of the objects you are discussing encompasing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now