What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

Author: OntologicalSpider
Religion
Philosophy
logic

Posts

Total: 436
#31
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ludofl3x
Based on the part about math and numbers alone, you and I are never going to come to an agreement on who's right,
I'm not trying to have you "agree." I'm trying to inform you. Numbers are a form. Without people, those forms are meaningless.

I don't think I have the energy for an argument over the purely theoretical existence of all gods, which is really the crux of the matter as I see it.
I'm not arguing over the purely theoretical; We're discussing the logical.

If you believe all gods, including those that contradict each other, exist because someone once thought of them,
That's not my argument at all. I'm arguing that whether it be an observation, thought, belief, imagination, deduction, etc. it bears no epistemological significance without the rationalizations of perception. If you're going to trivialize conceptualization, then at least be consistent.

I don't trivialize anything; I argue that everything is "real" because it's inextricably tied to perception and experience.

I'm sure you'll find other more worthy opponents more well versed in philosophical whatevers, but the argument as you lay it out is not the sort of thing that is going to inspire people to praise the lord or legislate over, or threaten each other with eternal retribution, you know?
It's not meant to be that type of argument. My engagement in this argument, as it almost always is, is in service to logical consistency; nothing less.

It doesn't touch on anything I'm really intrigued by.
Fair enough. Enjoy the rest of your day, ludofl3x.
#32
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Athias
We have to reconcile using a consistence discript of exist because of the fact that. 

Having unlimited time to prove a God exists is pretty dam handy. 
It's um, it's unsportsmanlike to say the least.
This fact forces us , well it forces me to be Agnostic, ' cough ' ' cough '.
 
Its been 5000 years plus thus far, and our best proof we have for the existence of a God thing is the ( MOPAC ARGUMENT ) I mean , Come on. 

You can't somewhat collectively say a god exists and expect NEVERENDING INFINITE time to prove it.
It's presumptuous and rude. 

But yeah
I do get the fact that theists don't want to rush these things. 
So i am happy today to award a " time extention " of sorts.
A extention on time  to the theists to prove a God exists.   
Take another 5000. 
( AWARD 5000 years )  

If we could get the theists to sign a contract saying that they have 10,000 years more to prove God exists and then call it a day,  along with awarding Atheists THE WIN. 
I can then today become a Atheist. 
Until then, Play on.
 




#33
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
"He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."


Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

#34
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
The faithless have it all backwards. God is revealed in The Walk.


To demand that God reveal Himself before committing to the walk is not much different than a "scientist" who refuses to perform an experiment  before knowing what the result will be.

#35
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
If you do not walk in truth, how is it reasonable to expect to see truth? It really isn't.


Maybe the best argument for God is really, "Come and see for yourself."

But alas, a faithless generation is cursed to slide deeper and deeper into delusion until it repents and walks in the way of The Lord or is destroyed by its own stupidity.
#36
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
My favorite is the Ontalogical Argument. The most common objection is as follows:

Premise one: The Ontalogical Argument requires a maximum being to necissarily exist in every possible reality in order to be sound.

Premise two: It is possible to imagine a possible reality where no beings of any kind exist

Conclusion: The Ontalogical Argument is not sound.

#37
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,614
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
What we mean by "God" with a capital "G" is The Ultimate Reality.

You must have missed the question , Mopac.  Here it is again, read it slowly;


What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

So what is it? How best and in which way is your "favorite argument" for gods existence? And a  dollop of supporting evidence will be nice too.

#38
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
My argument is that if you don't believe God exists, it is because you don't understand what is being discussed.
#39
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,614
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
My argument is that if you don't believe God exists,

That is a big assumption. I believe that there were many "gods" here a very long time ago and that they "left like migrating birds".


it is because you don't understand what is being discussed.

I do. It is to discuss "your" favorite argument concerning the "existence of god".  So lets here your argument that god exists. And  it has to be your favorite argument.
#40
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Athias
That's the error in your reductio ad absurdum: you haven't substantiated a contradiction, let alone a "self-contradiction"; if person A believes there's a house, and person B believes there's a factory, then what changes? Person A still believes there's a house, and person B still believes there's a factory. If they invite Person C to observe and person C agrees with person B, all that changes is the number of people who believe it's a factory. You cant test for its material composition, but that would not yield much of a result.
In reality there cannot be both a house and a factory. Belief does not change this. At least one of them does not exist at that address.


Not to mention, using your example, there's nothing that excludes a factory from being a house...
Obviously I had in mind definitions of "house" and "factory" that preclude each other. But if you want an example that leaves no semantic wiggle room, then let person A believe that there is a building at a certain location with exactly three stories, and person B a building with exactly ten stories.

Be mindful of your reasoning. Nothing you've argued actually excludes one from the other. Some early henotheistic religions believed that there was one God and that all gods were manifestations of the original. Even polytheistic religions operate on the premise of a single God having many manifestations (e.g. Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Hindu, etc.)
And some people believe there is exactly one God, and claims of all other Gods are false. The point is, people believe mutually exclusive things.
#41
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Athias
If I read you right, you are essentially saying that something exists as long as the concept of it exists. There is, however, a distinction between the concept of something and that something. Because the concept of God exists does not mean God exists, just as the concept of Santa Clause existing does not mean Santa Claus exists.

#42
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
Yes, you have made it clear that you are a pagan. No one cares.
#43
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Stronn
In reality, there cannot be both a house and a factory.
In reality, yes there can be. And you haven't really demonstrated the exclusion.

Obviously I had in mind definitions of "house" and "factory" that preclude each other.
Obviously you did. But you did not make that preclusion clear.

But if you want an example that leaves no semantic wiggle room
There's always semantic wiggle-room.

then let person A believe that there is a building at a certain location with exactly three stories, and person B a building with exactly ten stories.
This only presents a conflict of tautology. The rejection of definition however is not the same as a rejection of reality. If anything you're making my point: you believe 10 stories to be 10 stories; and you believe three stories to be three stories.

And some people believe there is exactly one God, and claims of all other Gods are false. The point is, people believe mutually exclusive things.
That's fine; that does not however contradict the logic of my argument--unless you're operating under the presumption of objectivity.

If I read you right, you are essentially saying that something exists as long as the concept of it exists. There is, however, a distinction between the concept of something and that something. Because the concept of God exists does not mean God exists, just as the concept of Santa Clause existing does not mean Santa Claus exists.
You continue to make declarations but you do not explain your reasoning.

And I'm not arguing that God exists as a concept. I'm arguing that God exists. As I mentioned to ludofl3x, the distinction between observation, deduction, conceptualization, belief, etc. is epistemologically insignificant because our rationalizations of reality and our perception are inescapable from conceptualization. I wouldn't bother to make that distinction. But once again, feel free to challenge.



#44
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
God is Reality as it Truly Is, or The Ultimate Reality.

If there is any reality at all, it by necessity derives its existence from The Ultimate Reality.

Experience scientifically verifies that there is some form of existence.

Therefore it can be known with 100% certainty that God exists. Not much else you can be that sure of!


168 days later

#45
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
@Athias
Based on the part about math and numbers alone, you and I are never going to come to an agreement on who's right,
I'm not trying to have you "agree." I'm trying to inform you. Numbers are a form. Without people, those forms are meaningless.
The underlined is puzzling to me. I understand forms to be conceptual. Would you agree? Thus, they are intangible, non-empirical, non-physical.

So, without people, are there still these forms? Does 2+2 still equal 4, or does that now become a logical impossibility?
IOW's,
1) are you saying that 2+2=4 is not an eternal truth, 2+2 could equal something other than 4, perhaps in another possible universe,
2) that before humanity began that equation was not a logical necessity, therefore twoness did not exist, thus there were no forms since forms require meaning,
3) there was still a necessary personal being, God, making it necessarily true?
#46
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Stronn
That's the error in your reductio ad absurdum: you haven't substantiated a contradiction, let alone a "self-contradiction"; if person A believes there's a house, and person B believes there's a factory, then what changes? Person A still believes there's a house, and person B still believes there's a factory. If they invite Person C to observe and person C agrees with person B, all that changes is the number of people who believe it's a factory. You cant test for its material composition, but that would not yield much of a result.
In reality there cannot be both a house and a factory. Belief does not change this. At least one of them does not exist at that address.
While I agree there is a logical contradiction if this is an either-or situation when no third possibility, such as an "and" exists. The third possibility can happen in this scenario with a house and factor combined at the same place (i.e., a person has an assembly line in his basement or garage). Thus, the building functions as a house and factory for the occupant.
#47
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
I have no idea why you're asking me: 2+2=4 with or without people to name "2" and "4", we are not required at all for that to be true in my view. 
#48
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@PGA2.0
The underlined is puzzling to me. I understand forms to be conceptual. Would you agree? Thus, they are intangible, non-empirical, non-physical.

So, without people, are there still these forms? Does 2+2 still equal 4, or does that now become a logical impossibility?
When I state that forms are meaningless without people, yes, I'm stating that it becomes irrational. According to materialist standard, numbers have no material or chemical properties. Therefore, they would be nonexistent; yet applied mathematics is credited for the substantiation of physical laws. How then can the immaterial/nonexistent interact with the existent, let alone inform it?


IOW's,
1) are you saying that 2+2=4 is not an eternal truth, 2+2 could equal something other than 4, perhaps in another possible universe,
2) that before humanity began that equation was not a logical necessity, therefore twoness did not exist, thus there were no forms since forms require meaning,
3) there was still a necessary personal being, God, making it necessarily true?
1. Two plus two can equal something other than four in this universe. Arithmetical standards need only be manipulated.

2. I suppose one could make that conclusion based off that which I stated. But I wouldn't because I don't presume to be an observer of nothingness.

3. Did God make two plus two equal four true? No.

While I agree there is a logical contradiction if this is an either-or situation when no third possibility, such as an "and" exists. The third possibility can happen in this scenario with a house and factor combined at the same place (i.e., a person has an assembly line in his basement or garage). Thus, the building functions as a house and factory for the occupant.
There is no contradiction. No description of a house excludes it from being a factory, and no description of a factory excludes it from being a house.
#49
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Athias
The underlined is puzzling to me. I understand forms to be conceptual. Would you agree? Thus, they are intangible, non-empirical, non-physical.

So, without people, are there still these forms? Does 2+2 still equal 4, or does that now become a logical impossibility?
When I state that forms are meaningless without people, yes, I'm stating that it becomes irrational. According to materialist standard, numbers have no material or chemical properties. Therefore, they would be nonexistent; yet applied mathematics is credited for the substantiation of physical laws. How then can the immaterial/nonexistent interact with the existent, let alone inform it?
True, that is the is-ought fallacy, isn't it? It brings up the problem of how you get an is from an ought, something intangible, non-physical, and abstract from the physical, empirical, or the prescriptive (what should be) from the descriptive (noticed behaviours and actions). 
#50
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@PGA2.0
That's an astute observation which undermines their--as in materialists--standards. I've posited before that everything we perceive is contingent on our minds--especially our conceptualizations and our rationalizations. So then what is the epistemological significance in making a distinction between the immaterial and that which materialists allege is material? Particularly when physical laws (allegedly material) are DEFINED by mathematical proof (immaterial)?

So when an atheist attempts to trivialize God by asserting something to the effect that "God exists only in the mind," it's replete with double standards because the physical science off which they base their contentions is defined by that which, one can easily argue, "exists only in the mind" with the use of a standard that is identical to their own. 
#51
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Athias
That's an astute observation which undermines their--as in materialists--standards.
Materialists or empiricists do have a problem in explaining how they get from the physical to the intangible, non-physical. 


I've posited before that everything we perceive is contingent on our minds--especially our conceptualizations and our rationalizations. So then what is the epistemological significance in making a distinction between the immaterial and that which materialists allege is material? Particularly when physical laws (allegedly material) are DEFINED by mathematical proof (immaterial)?
Good point!

The question I never see answered by strict materialists (who deny God or a supernatural being) is how does something without consciousness become conscious?

I like to point out that these mathematical equations (proofs) that you speak of that describe the laws of nature, such as the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, speed of light, etc., are principles we discover, not what we invent. They operate apart from any one of us thinking them. They are intelligible, suggesting a necessary mind (since our minds are not necessary for these laws to exist) has put these laws into place. So, we have a more plausible explanation than the materialist who is operating on the principle of blind, indifferent, chance happenstance. For the strict materialist, the question is, how do you get information and more importantly constancy (uniformity of nature) from a natural universe devoid of a necessary mind? 



So when an atheist attempts to trivialize God by asserting something to the effect that "God exists only in the mind," it's replete with double standards because the physical science off which they base their contentions is defined by that which, one can easily argue, "exists only in the mind" with the use of a standard that is identical to their own. 

I think I understand what you are saying and if so I agree wholeheartedly and like what you are saying! God is Spirit and thus not physical in nature. Thus, it is with our minds that we contemplate and know Him. The mathematics we use to describe the laws of nature are also mental. We use our minds to conceptualize these laws. So, the materialist is using a double standard. He/she is working beyond what can be proven by the pure physical. The concept of twoness is not tangible, nor are the principles of mathematics we use to describe the physical workings of the universe. So, once again the materialist is inconsistent and hypocritical in his/her thinking and borrows from another worldview that does make sense.  
#52
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
I have no idea why you're asking me: 2+2=4 with or without people to name "2" and "4", we are not required at all for that to be true in my view. 
It is a little heady. 

I'm asking you if you believe that materialism or empiricism alone explains the problem of the is-ought fallacy (what "is" as opposed to what "should be") since 2+2=4 is conceptual and cannot be grasped physically since concepts are intangible? I'm not speaking of the physical brain, but the mind where intellect and consciousness abide unless you think the two are the same). If materialism, the mind is a physical thing along with everything else that exists. Do you believe concepts are physical things, produced by the mere physical reactions? If so, please explain further. Do you believe the principles of addition or mathematics require minds, and if minds which ones? It is obvious that principles of mathematics do not exist only in your mind or my mind alone, but applies universally. Now, if universal, they exists apart from your mind or my mind. Thus, our minds are not necessary for the existence of these mathematical laws/principles. They are non-physical. You can't grab hold of twoness. And if twoness is a product of the mind that is intangible, are principles like the laws of addition (2+2=4) always true. If they are always true (universal), do they not require an absolute, objective, necessary eternal mind as their source (an eternal or forever concept) since we discover them, or is it possible that 2+2=5 can also be true some times and in some possible worlds? IOW's is it possible, ever, that 2+2 can equal something other than 4 (an eternal truth)?

Since mathematics requires mindfulness and the principles of mathematics exist regardless of whether you believe them, your mind (or mine) is necessary for their existence, but mindfulness is necessary for their existence.

 The same goes for logic and rationale. The laws of logic are not something physical but they apply universally and without them, you could make sense of nothing. They, again, are mindful, but your mind is not necessary for their existence. These principles of the mind seem to exist regardless of whether you do. 

I hope that is a little clearer, although this is difficult to conceptualize and explain. Hopefully, you see where I am coming from. I believe mathematics and logic require a necessary mindful being since they exist regardless of your belief. 
#53
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Athias

The underlined is puzzling to me. I understand forms to be conceptual. Would you agree? Thus, they are intangible, non-empirical, non-physical.

So, without people, are there still these forms? Does 2+2 still equal 4, or does that now become a logical impossibility?
When I state that forms are meaningless without people, yes, I'm stating that it becomes irrational. According to materialist standard, numbers have no material or chemical properties. Therefore, they would be nonexistent; yet applied mathematics is credited for the substantiation of physical laws. How then can the immaterial/nonexistent interact with the existent, let alone inform it?
I think the underlined is well said! We use symbols and words to express what does not exist physically. We can describe the nonphysical or things that do not exist physically through these means.  

IOW's,
1) are you saying that 2+2=4 is not an eternal truth, 2+2 could equal something other than 4, perhaps in another possible universe,
2) that before humanity began that equation was not a logical necessity, therefore twoness did not exist, thus there were no forms since forms require meaning,
3) there was still a necessary personal being, God, making it necessarily true?
1. Two plus two can equal something other than four in this universe. Arithmetical standards need only be manipulated.
But are you saying that two physical objects plus two physical objects can equal something other than four physical objects?

2. I suppose one could make that conclusion based off that which I stated. But I wouldn't because I don't presume to be an observer of nothingness.
I would not either, because I believe God exists and therefore is the necessary being. Nothing is not a thing. Nothing cannot create anything for that would be an illogical and self-refuting concept of self-creation. 

3. Did God make two plus two equal four true? No.
But do we derive 2+2=4 from the mind of God as our source?

While I agree there is a logical contradiction if this is an either-or situation when no third possibility, such as an "and" exists. The third possibility can happen in this scenario with a house and factor combined at the same place (i.e., a person has an assembly line in his basement or garage). Thus, the building functions as a house and factory for the occupant.
There is no contradiction. No description of a house excludes it from being a factory, and no description of a factory excludes it from being a house.
The definition of a house and a factory are not the same. Thus, there is a contradiction in terms unless further explanation distinguishes and contains a combination of the two definitions within the one structure.

House - A structure serving as a dwelling for one or more persons, especially for a family

Factory - A building or group of buildings in which goods are manufactured; a plant.

#54
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
 IOW's is it possible, ever, that 2+2 can equal something other than 4 (an eternal truth)?

Not without changing the definitions of "2" and "4," no. 2+2=4 is demonstrably and irrevocably true.

 I believe mathematics and logic require a necessary mindful being since they exist regardless of your belief. 
Seems a leap and completely unnecessary to me. You can neither demonstrate this requirement as necessary, nor can you advance the ball from "mindful being" to Jesus. We've had this discussion. You just say "It's what I presuppose, and that's exactly the same as you presupposing the neutral position." Usually accompanied by the wall of text and a few bible verses. But if that belief is all that keeps you from eating children or whatever it is you think non-believers MUST do because thay don't believe, then by all means, it's fine to believe whatever it is!
#55
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Well stated.
#56
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I like to point out that these mathematical equations (proofs) that you speak of that describe the laws of nature, such as the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, speed of light, etc., are principles we discover, not what we invent. They operate apart from any one of us thinking them. They are intelligible, suggesting a necessary mind (since our minds are not necessary for these laws to exist) has put these laws into place. So, we have a more plausible explanation than the materialist who is operating on the principle of blind, indifferent, chance happenstance.
Can one control for this? That is isolate that which we perceive from discovery and rationalize through conceptualization and that which which we allege is independent from the former? How are these principles intelligible independent of our minds when our minds are used to rationalize?

I think I understand what you are saying and if so I agree wholeheartedly and like what you are saying! God is Spirit and thus not physical in nature. Thus, it is with our minds that we contemplate and know Him. The mathematics we use to describe the laws of nature are also mental. We use our minds to conceptualize these laws. So, the materialist is using a double standard. He/she is working beyond what can be proven by the pure physical. The concept of twoness is not tangible, nor are the principles of mathematics we use to describe the physical workings of the universe. So, once again the materialist is inconsistent and hypocritical in his/her thinking and borrows from another worldview that does make sense.  
Not just used to described but to inform (i.e. mathematics and the physical laws of nature.) Other than that, you hit the nail right on the head.

But are you saying that two physical objects plus two physical objects can equal something other than four physical objects?
Yes. Even if one argues that we replace the forms that one alleges "identify," what defines it being four physical objects? Our descriptions. Our conceptualization. 

But do we derive 2+2=4 from the mind of God as our source?
I don't presume to have access to God's mind.

The definition of a house and a factory are not the same. Thus, there is a contradiction in terms unless further explanation distinguishes and contains a combination of the two definitions within the one structure.

House - A structure serving as a dwelling for one or more persons, especially for a family

Factory - A building or group of buildings in which goods are manufactured; a plant.
Look at those descriptions again. Neither excludes the other. A house is actually a place where goods are manufactured (e.g. food, clean clothes, etc.) And what do you see in the description of a factory that would exclude a family from living in it?


#57
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ludofl3x
Not without changing the definitions of "2" and "4," no. 2+2=4 is demonstrably and irrevocably true.
If the veracity of the statement is contingent on its definition, then 2+2=4 is not "irrevocably" true.

#58
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Athias
Would it be fairer to say "true under the common understanding of the words "two" and "four"', then?
#59
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ludofl3x
Would it be fairer to say "true under the common understanding of the words "two" and "four"', then?
Yes. However, it suffices to say that's logically the case. That's not necessarily empirical.

#60
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
 IOW's is it possible, ever, that 2+2 can equal something other than 4 (an eternal truth)?

Not without changing the definitions of "2" and "4," no. 2+2=4 is demonstrably and irrevocably true.

 I believe mathematics and logic require a necessary mindful being since they exist regardless of your belief. 
Seems a leap and completely unnecessary to me. You can neither demonstrate this requirement as necessary, nor can you advance the ball from "mindful being" to Jesus. We've had this discussion. You just say "It's what I presuppose, and that's exactly the same as you presupposing the neutral position." Usually accompanied by the wall of text and a few bible verses. But if that belief is all that keeps you from eating children or whatever it is you think non-believers MUST do because thay don't believe, then by all means, it's fine to believe whatever it is!
Logically, what is the more reasonable and more consistent to what we see, understand and witness? Blind, dumb, indifferent chance happenstance?

Is your mind necessary for 2+2=4 to be true? If you did not exist but I did, would it make any difference whether I believed this or not as to its truthfulness? Thus, I charge it is not necessary for you to exist and it still is true. It is not necessary for me to exist and it still is true. But to think it, it requires a mind. Without any mind, it could not be known. But would it still be true? The principle of addition seems to be built into the universe, just like natural laws seem to be built into the universe. We don't make them up. We discover them. Thus, it is reasonable to believe a necessary Mind has put them in place. It speaks of intelligence. It is not reasonable to believe these laws or principles came about by chance happenstance. That does not explain how they are sustained, indefinitely. Purpose and meaning require intent and agency. Chance happenstance is not a thing. It can do nothing. For everything that has a beginning, there seems to be a cause. Or do you think some things are self-creating? Think about that. How can something that does not exist create itself? It is a self-refuting principle. Thus, God, the ultimate Being (outside of our time continuum), is the most reasonable answer for the physical universe and our conscious being. 

If you think otherwise, let's see your reasoning. I bet it is extremely inconsistent with chance happenstance or materialism. The universe requires a Creator/God to make sense. Of course, you are welcome to stumble about while denying Him.