drafterman

What? The fact that users are allowed to form and express their own opinions about other users? No, that is not being looked into.

I guess it would be a CoC violation if he print screened his PM and posted it in the public? 

When the need arises, the head moderators can check IPs, yet. It is not a routine thing, no.

How else do you check multi-accounts if not through IPs?

What is your next move since ethang5 said it was in PMs?

1. No

Is that being looked into?

2. Willows is not currently banned.

Have you asked ethang5 why Willows will make a second account when his original account is still active?

My only interest is if they are the same users then one of the accounts needs to be disabled to comply with alternate account rules.

Don't you already check people's IPs.

What data could ethang5 give in order to convince you otherwise?

If it is PM then wouldn't that mean ethang5 will be banned for sharing that information or maybe you will ban him for even accepting that before receiving that information. Don't know how you enforce that. 

This is pedantic and I don't why you just can't scroll up but whatever.

Post #35

Remember he was banned before (as Willows) for the same behavior. We are now under a different CoC, so it may be true that his is not violating our current CoC.

Calling Salixes Willows without evidence. He should also know that you check this stuff so he is pretty much lying.

Post #38

Salixes is Willows.

I've known he was Willows for a while, and said nothing till he voluntarily admitted to me that he was.

Doubling down. Says he knows but doesn't show the information. This is could be seen as misleading moderators on information plus doubling down on an accusations. 

Contrary to popular belief

Why add this? I have in no way spread conspiracy theories nor made any comparison that you are literally everywhere. 

 the moderators do not monitor every single user's posts. So when you say, "what ethang is doing" you are going to have to be more specific/explicit.

Am I supposed to take this seriously? I never asked you to look at every single post. I said look at ethang 5's posts. It is heavily implied that it is his posts in this thread since I brought it up in this thread yet you say this? 

Not in set theory, no.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're opposing. Are you saying that two sets with the same number of elements cannot be called equal?

It makes their cardinality the same, yes, but it does not make them equal.

It depends on what the equality refers to. Two infinite sets are equal in infinity if they share a 1 to 1 correlation. Also, two sets with similar element types can be said to be "equal", like a set of black cars, and the set of red cars, if "equal" is referring to the type of element within the sets.

The size of a set is represented by its cardinality. And you an certainly (as shown) move between larger and smaller cardinalities among sets of infinite size through addition and substraction.

The only way to reduce an infinite set in size is to subtract an infinity, but that is not subtraction as much as it is a deletion.

No, being in 1:1 correlation with something does not make those two things identical.

It makes them identical in infiniteness.

The set of all even numbers is in 1:1 correlation with the set of odd numbers, but it would be incorrect to say that the set of even numbers IS the set of odd numbers.

You misunderstand me. A set that shares a 1 to 1 correlation with another set that is infinite, is itself infinite. And while we have infinite sets in theory, God is the only literal infinite set. Any real set that is infinite is either a subset of God, and therefore reflects the property of God, or it is the superset God itself.

But that is not what makes sets equal. Sets are only equal of they contain the same elements.

No. There are several ways sets can be equal. They can have an equal number of elements, or they can have the same type of element, or they can be infinite.

It is not rational to say two sets are equal because they have the same elements. This is tautology. Its like saying the set of all even numbers is equal to the set of even numbers. They aren't two separate sets. But sets can be equal in size, or type of S, or in infinity.

It's amazing you answered "yes" to my quote... You can't even look at the sun with your naked eye and you expect the Creator of all Suns to give you a shout out...

You're yet to explain why God is obligated to speak to you directly, considering he's the Creator of the entire universe and everything within it, and you're a collection of  dust who came on the scene in the 80s, but interestingly enough, let me ask you this.

If the God of the Bible came down directly from heaven and said,

"Drafterman... I am real."

In all honesty, would you worship Him and become a Christian?

If we're talking about what God actually does in response to a genuine believer, Jesus already told us:

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. (John 14:23)

So no, we don't actually have to pull a guest into our house, He will come and make His abode with us. That's contingent on us actually seeking/ believing on Him.

I'm not personally aware of anything God has done for me.

Oh that's just crazy talk. Aside from holding together every atom in your body and supplying you with life and consciousness for some three decades, He also died to redeem your soul. That's lot.

I find it ironic that you contend you're a limited being with a life of your own who shouldn't shoulder the responsibility of seeking his Creator. Think about this for a moment...

The Being who not only created the entire universe, and for all we know, multiverse, but sustains and upholds the entire realm of existence, sustaining our world, sustaining all the life within it, ordering the cosmos, judging countless souls... Basically the Manager of the universe, is obligated to pursue a minute life form unimaginably below Him?

The amazing thing is He does pursue us still. He even sends ontological spiders to try and reason with unbelievers and show them the error of their ways. ;)

I would argue the opposite.

We submit to God as a response to what He did and does for us.

We don't say hey God if you're out there give me a jingle sometime. That's hardly the right way to approach the Creator and sustainer of all.

Think about the implications of this for a moment. If God exists, He is the sole reason for your existence. You are completely dependant every day on Him sustaining your life, giving breath and letting you live to see each minute.

So in light of that alone, if God did exist, would in not be our responsibility to seek Him

I'm just wondering, why does God have to shoulder the burden of pursuing you? If God existed, wouldn't you, as His creation, be obligated to seek and know Him?

To say that scripture is "just" a book of myths is very dismissive.

unless your scripture says that Jesus was the entirety of space-time and all of the energy and matter contained therein, then he wasn't a perfect image of reality

"the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."

I said that I, like everyone else, directly experiences reality, not that the perception of reality is the same among everyone

Everyone directly experiences a reality, and everyone's experience is their personal relationship with God.

But the reality that we experience is not ultimately real. It should be apparent that the inadequacy of our senses, the propensity of the mind to hallucinate, the desires and motivations of our heart, and the narrowness of our perspective act as strong evidences that the way we experience reality is not reality as it truly is.

You appear to be expressing naïve realism.

If Jesus Christ were simply a human being, the scripture would not say, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man"

Starting with #3, the referenced paper does not prove that all identical sets are equal, 

The paper does not try to prove all identical sets are equal! What would "identical" and "equal" mean in such a case? Identical sets ARE equal.

The paper asserted that though p was a subset of t, t was not larger than p! The subset still shared a 1 to 1 correlation with the original set. They were both infinite.

As a consequence, findings #2 and #1 are also false, as you can move from a countable set to an uncountable set via addition or subtraction. For example, the Integers + (Reals-Integers) = Reals. E.g. you've added something to a countable set to make it uncountable, thus increasing its cardinality. And a similar logic shows that you can subtract from an uncountable set to make it countable, thus decreasing its cardinality.

You are confusing countability with infinity. You cannot move from infinity to finite via subtraction with infinite sets. And addition does not change a sets cardinality. Findings #1 and #2 are correct as to the sets quality of being infinite.

That they exist in 1:1 correlation with God (and each other) is true.

And any being with a 1 to 1 correlation  with God IS God.

However, it is not true to say that the sets are "equal." They have the same cardinality, yes, but sets are only equal if they contain the same elements. 

Untrue. Two sets containing all the same elements are tautology. They would be the same set. They are equal in "infiniteness". And share cardinality.

Since F, S, and H are all proper subsets of G, then necessarily G contains elements not in F, S, and H meaning it is not equal to them.

Partly true. For F, S and H are still just as "big" as G, and still have a  1 to 1 correlation to G. And while G has elements not in each subset, no subset has elements not in G.

It is possible for F = S = H, however, since we are told of no other distinguishing characteristics that might set them apart.

If they are separate sets, they must have at least some unique elements.

But again, it would seem that the fact that G contains elements not in F, S, or H, then G has properties that are also not in F, S, H, namely the property of containing said elements!

Containing certain elements is not a "property". Of course G has elements not in a subset. That is a given. The point is that the subset is still the same size as G.