-->
@Best.Korea
Do you think you got smarter when you became an atheist?Yes.
If you became a Christian again, would you get dumber?
Do you think you got smarter when you became an atheist?Yes.
If you became a Christian again, would you get dumber?
Math doesn't "exist" in any sense of the word, nor is it a product of anything.Then how does that which does not exist interact with that which does exist without unilateral or "co-"dependency?
so when you argue that math comes from God you are arguing that logic also comes from God, which is incoherent.Not really.
if we presuppose that logic does come from God, would he not be subject to it?
Nope, humans invented it. Abstracts according to materialist standards don't "exist" in nature; "discovery" implies observation, where as abstracts, like logic and mathematics, imply conception.
According to materialist standards, the laws of physics control the universe; and EVERY PHYSICAL LAW MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN. In that sense, in concordance with materialist description, math does control the universe.
Why is his being the origin of logic and being subject to logic mutually exclusive?
Adamantly within the scriptures, Jesus is greedy, jealous, selfish, self-centered, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, and a malevolent. I accept the aforementioned true description of Jesus within the Bible, and I do not try and apologetically spin doctor His true self away, understood Bible fool?
You should have started off with this. Yours is a creationist argument.To me, this argument is not enough to prove the existence of God, specially if it's the God of christians which is what you refer to, I suppose.I would argue though that creationism can prove the existence of a "universal mind" or a "universal conciousness", but God is not just this according to religious people. For theists, God is omniscient, omnipotent, almighty, vengeful and loving, harsh and compassionate, unforgiving and merciful, in other words God is a mother fucker but also a saint, which is, as you noted, soundly ridiculous.When you, christians, start to understand that your bible is pure nonsense, I think we can sit down and talk like the big boys we are.
Math doesn't "exist" in any sense of the word, nor is it a product of anything.
Math is an extension of logic, so when you argue that math comes from God you are arguing that logic also comes from God, which is incoherent.
Let's start at the beginning. Do you believe God is subject to the laws of logic?
If you say he's not, then your belief in him is irrational by definition.
Neither option makes sense. Humans didn't invent math, we discovered it.
Math doesn't "control" the universe in any coherent sense of the word. It's not acting, is not making decisions, it just is.
Let's start at the beginning. Do you believe God is subject to the laws of logic?No. He is not subject to anything.
It doesn't "interact". It is an observable quality of existence, and is no more explainable than existence itself.
In order for it to come from God that would mean God came first This means there was a point in which there was a God but no logic
This means it is possible for something to exist without being subject to logic
This means it is possible for something to be what it is and not be what it is at the same time in the same sense.
2+2=4 was true long before humans came along.
We didn't create that
we observed that it was true and then created words to express it.
That's called discovery.
Words have meaning. The universe and everything in it is subject to the laws of physics and math. That is not what it means for something to be controlled. This is a silly semantic point.
I think I answered this above.
Math comes from logic.
Math is an extension of logic,Very much so.
Put 2 carrots down and then put another 2 carrots down.
Now count the total number of carrots.
That is how math started.
How do you know it's two?
We assign
The numbers "two" and "four" are merely abstract assignments.
a single object as one object,
Add another object and that is 2 objects. We developed numbers to define quantities.
In Spanish one is uno.
Number systems have progressed from the use of fingers and tally marks,
perhaps more than 40,000 years ago,
to the use of sets of glyphs able to represent any conceivable number efficiently.
The earliest known unambiguous notations for numbers emerged in Mesopotamia about 5000 or 6000 years ago.
How can an "observable quality of existence" NOT EXIST?
Which came first, the "mind" or the "self"?
Is it not worth considering that God and logic are concurrent?
This means it is possible for something to exist without being subject to logicYes.
If you're going to argue that logic is "an observable quality of existence" then why is it not then not apropos to argue that logic is an observable quality of God?
2+2=4 was true long before humans came along.No, it wasn't. The numbers "two" and "four" are merely abstract assignments.
What are the masses, weights, volumes, and densities of the numbers "two" and "four"?
The silly semantic point is to argue in this context that there's a distinction between being "subject to" the laws of physics and math, and being "controlled."
Because it doesn't meet the definition of the word.To exist is to "have being". Qualities don't have being, they are observations of things that have being.
In this context those two words synonymous.
I suppose you could say that, but my position is that it's not God that is necessarily concurrent with logic but rather existence itself. God is therefore concurrent not because he is God but because he (allegedly) exists.
You can conceptually have logic without God, you cannot conceptually have God without logic.
You're talking about the words,
I'm talking about the essence of what those words are describing.
Long before life existed on earth there were two rocks on some hill and two rocks on another, those rocks still totaled 4 even if there were no humans around to recognize it.
They don't have weights or volumes. This is a category error, one which I know you understand full well. Why ask me such a silly question?
There is a distinction, and it's a very big one here in this conversation. The phrase "subject to" simply means in accordance with, that can very easily be applied and is often applied to mean "along the lines of [something that has no agency]".Meanwhile "controlled" is used to describe a state where a thinking agent is actively involved in the events of something and actively making decisions as to what happens. Because of this, the word carries with it a clear emotional connotation because of how it has always been applied. That connotation is therefore being smuggled in when used towards something with no agency.
This is a common tactic in theistic arguments,
This is what one has to resort to when their position is ultimately without rational support.
Basic common sense would say that someone designed this, but no human designed it.
...except that sometimes the universe defies our "common sense." Amazingly, this quite literally infinitely intricate shape is merely a logical inevitability. By this I mean, from the rules selected (z^2=z+c, the iteration process, checking if it remains bounded, etc.), this shape is the only one that could ever arise, independent of any sort of god, or of us, or of the physical universe, or of any sort of supernatural force external to the physical universe. If you were to truly perform the tedious task of breaking every step of this down to its purely logical roots, you would see it for the logical inevitability that it truly is. This is what makes math one of the most intriguing subjects. It doesn't need to be created by anyone or anything. It doesn't need to be caused, or to be brought into existence. It just is.
But something can't just be. Something can't exist without being created in some way shape or form.
Why? If you consider God to be the creator of all other things, than God was not created.
I have often heard the argument that God exists outside of time, and so is separated from causality, but the exact same thing applies to math. Math is effectively the study of those truths which are absolutely necessary. This shape, and everything else in math, exist outside of time just like this proposed God.
In fact, that which is outside of time has, at any point in time, has always existed
To believe God is not subject to the laws of logic is to believe that God can exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense.
My apologies. Let me more clearly outline what i am referring to. I am saying that something that is a part of our natural world, that exists in our natural world, cannot have no cause. God, in order to be correctly defined as God, would have to not he bound by time, space, or matter. Therefore, he would have exist outside of our natural world, making him supernatural.
True. But since we also utilize math, it also exists in our natural world, so it would logically have to demand a beginning, and creation, preferably by something beyond its capabilities.
But, time has not always existed. You can have an infinite future, but you cannot have an infinite past, otherwise it would be impossible to make your way to the present.
To believe God is not subject to the laws of logic is to believe that God can exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense.No. He exists, but not in our natural world. He can affect our natural world, but can't exist in it, because the universe is finite, and God is infinite.
First I didn't say he did exist and not exist, I said he could, as in it's within his capabilities.
Second, existence isn't limited to the natural world.
You say he can't exist within the natural world because he's infinite and the natural world is finite. In other words, he can't exist in the natural world because that would be a logical contradiction.
Math is not bound by time, space, or matter, therefore you should hopefully agree that it requires no creator.
If the allegory contains a unicorn, and the allegory is applied to the natural world, then by your logic, unicorns exist in the natural world.
"Time has not always existed" huh? So there was a point in time at which time didn't exist?
But math in of itself is a sign of intelligence.
Again, if this intelligence goes beyond time space, and matter, then it can also create things beyond time space and matter. How do your account for the fact that math is infinite, but the universe is finite?
Yes, the concept of a unicorn exists in the natural world.
Yes, but I wouldn't phrase it like that. I would say that there was a point where time came into existence.
What do you mean? Doing math is a sign of intelligence, yes, but the Mandelbrot set was the Mandelbrot set before anyone plugged the numbers into a computer, and if you disagree with that, then you are effectively saying that said computer created it, which would defeat your entire original argument.
To create is to bring into existence. This implies that the thing previously did not exist, and now does exist. If it did exist previously, it did not need to be created, and if it does not exist now, then it has not been created.
As to your question, it's simple: Math is not contained within the physical world.
Okay, so we extend the natural world beyond the physical world. Why is it that everything in the natural world must be created?
The point is that you cannot create something if that thing exists regardless of your creation of it.
. In a theoretical in which God did not exist, when the formula for generating the Mandelbrot set was plugged into a computer, what would happen?