What do you think the human perspective on maths relies on? Magic?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is it that incomprehensible to some that we theists may come to theism by way of evidence & reason?
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
Math is objective and mind independent, we simply discover and label it's laws.
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
I prefer to respond to the direct question that was presented through the title of this thread.
Yes, it is incomprehensible.
For if there was any evidence, then that evidence could be shared in such a way that ALL would believe without question. That skepticism is a reality and that faith is man's only tether to religious belief, then it is obvious the evidence theists think they have is the furthest thing from what evidence is according to a realistic perspective on the meaning of the concept of evidence.
Then why has maths, or that part of it with which we seek to model reality, progressed through trial and error?
Maths is imaginary in that it exists only as concepts in brains. Its entities don't exist in reality.
If they did, we'd see uninstantiated twos running round out there, Where do you say we can find some "real" uninstantiated twos?
What is it that you want to believe
.....and is it your position that the Creator should somehow conform to what humans require of him, rather than what he requires of humans?
So because not everyone accepts evolution then it must not have evidence and be false, right? Or do you pick and choose what your logic applies to.
Oh, so because we update our information about math it doesn't objectively exists? With science we update our knowledge of the objective world, therefore the objective world doesn't exist? While it's not logical I suppose it's pretty standard materialism so...
While I have you, say I have a pile of three apples. If all humans die, by what magical method does the quantity of apples change/cease to exist?
You say maths objectively exists.
I ask you to show me a "real" two, an uninstantiated two, running around in the wild.
Nope, You haven't got one.
The reason you haven't got one is because the entities of maths exist only as concepts. Concepts are only found in brains. Brains are material.
So since you say the "immaterial" is real, you still need to provide the test that distinguishes it from the imaginary.
So far it looks as though you don't have that either.
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
The evidence for evolution is available. One cannot state the same for theistic concepts.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
am I to take Noahs ark as a literal event in history?What is it that you want to believe
where is the plain justice in the world?
and I desire for there to be a just all knowing, omniscient God of Truth.
I would appreciate evidence that i can ascertain simply and easily. so I don't have to do mind boggling investigations.
Lol, this is hysterical. Fine math, logic, all of it is just made up nonsense. Now you can pretend your position is logical because logic is subjective? I seriously think materialism may be the most willfully ignorant religion in our modern day.
Many theists have made the evidence readily available, including myself. That you choose to pretend it doesn't exist is just your average look into the mindset of modern atheism.
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
As I have already stated: if the evidence was real, there would be no need for skepticism on the part of the atheist or faith on the part of the religious believer.
If empirical evidence of god's existence was provided, I would have no problem changing my mind to accept god as real. Until such a time that the evidence can be provided, however, I shall continue to realistically view god as on the same level as Santa Clause.
What do you mean? There is always a place for skepticism, and I'd say most occult religions root themselves in logic and evidence than faith. But again, do you really believe that evolution is false since not everyone believes it? I find that ridiculous.
You want physical evidence for something immaterial? Quite reasonable /s! You can find my own personal argument linked below, but I'm well aware arguing with a materialist is like arguing with a creationist.
Discussing Beliefs in General LHP Discussion
Personally, I take it as literal, because I have no reason not to.......but if you do not wish to see it as literal, at least you can acknowledge the lesson. Jesus used it to illustrate what the situation would be like at the time of his return. (Matthew 24:37-39)
Because of demonic interference, the world of Noah's time suffered destruction because of its incorrigible wickedness.
No one listened when the warning was sounded because no one believed what Noah said. They carried on with their lives like it was no big deal. Jesus said that situation was to happen again. The world of today is also incorrigibly wicked and getting worse by the day. Demonic influences are responsible for the perverted sex and violence of today, just as it was back in Noah's time.
There is no justice in this world because of who is running the show. The Apostle John identified who that is.....
"We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." (1 John 5:19)
How did the devil get to become world ruler? He claimed he could do a better job at ruling mankind, so God let him prove how good his rulership really was.
"So he brought him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time. 6 Then the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and their glory, because it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7 If you, therefore, do an act of worship before me, it will all be yours.” (Luke 4:5-7)
The devil could not offer what was not his to give. Jesus never disputed his claim, but showed that he would not be a part of it. This is why he told his disciples to be "no part of this world". (John 15:18-21)
So it was always the devil's ambition to be mankind's god and ruler....and he could give rulership of any part of the world to whomever he wished. Do you see it? I believe it is quite obvious.
So don't expect to see justice prevail in this world....only in the one to come. (2 Peter 3:13)
There is....but he has just been horribly misrepresented by fake Christianity. Remember when Jesus warned about the "wheat and the weeds"? (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-43) That parable is telling us that the devil would set up a false kind of Christianity shortly after the first Christians were established. Christendom is a product of those "weeds". You will find no truth in that divided mess. The identifying mark of true Christianity is not division, but unity and love. (1 Corinthians 1:10; John 13:34-35)
Please allow me to recommend a simple book, called "What Does the Bible Really Teach?"
Here is a list of the Chapter titles. Contents — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
It's is a very easy to understand guide to what the Bible really teaches, as opposed to what it does not teach. You may be surprised at what you find. I will leave it with you to evaluate for yourself if you so wish....
There is even a play button if you would like to listen instead of read.
You've said or implied that the objects of math have objective existence.
Yet you haven't told me where numbers with objective existence are to be found. For example, you haven't shown me an uninstantiated two outside of a brain.
You still haven't told me the test that will distinguish the immaterial from the imaginary.
Skip the abuse and just address the questions, please.
You are asking for the immaterial to be physically shown. This is utter nonsense. A = A whether there are minds around to realize that or not.
You say the immaterial you speak of has objective existence.
So there's no puzzle about asking you to show it to us ─ all things with objective existence have their real demonstrations.
Simply state the test that distinguishes these things from imaginary things ─ things that don't exist independently of human mentation.
You also said that numbers have objective existence. So it ought to be a very straightforward matter for you to demonstrate an uninstantiated two out in the open, not simply a concept in a brain.
If you can't do these things, just say so.
It is the height of absurdity to expect physical evidence of something that is not physical. Do you honestly, truly believe there is no evidence suggesting the existence of mathematical ontology and logic?
Exactly. The point you repeatedly miss is that all real things, all things that have objective existence, are physical ─ including the concepts of maths, which are brain patterns hence material.
They exist as concepts in brains.
Do you honestly, truly believe there are uninstantiated twos running around out there with objective existence? If you do, then since they have objective existence, exist independently of any brain holding that concept, you MUST be able to show us one.
But you can't ─ because the abstraction 'two' exists only as a concept in each brain that holds that concept. If there is no brain in the universe that holds this concept, then "twoness" ─ the abstract uninstantiated number 2 ─ is found nowhere in the universe.
And to say that X is 'immaterial' is the same thing as saying X exists only as a concept in a brain, and concepts are material. (However, as I've said, the contents of a concept need not be of something that has objective existence, just as the drawing on a piece of paper can be of something imaginary like a unicorn or a god.)
And that's why you can't tell me an objective test to distinguish the 'immaterial' from the imaginary. The 'immaterial' does not have objective existence.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
this is very different than the kjv 1611.Personally, I take it as literal, because I have no reason not to.......but if you do not wish to see it as literal, at least you can acknowledge the lesson. Jesus used it to illustrate what the situation would be like at the time of his return. (Matthew 24:37-39)
Because of demonic interference, the world of Noah's time suffered destruction because of its incorrigible wickedness.
No one listened when the warning was sounded because no one believed what Noah said. They carried on with their lives like it was no big deal. Jesus said that situation was to happen again. The world of today is also incorrigibly wicked and getting worse by the day. Demonic influences are responsible for the perverted sex and violence of today, just as it was back in Noah's time.
There is no justice in this world because of who is running the show. The Apostle John identified who that is.....
"We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." (1 John 5:19)
How did the devil get to become world ruler? He claimed he could do a better job at ruling mankind, so God let him prove how good his rulership really was.
"So he brought him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time. 6 Then the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and their glory, because it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7 If you, therefore, do an act of worship before me, it will all be yours.” (Luke 4:5-7)
The devil could not offer what was not his to give. Jesus never disputed his claim, but showed that he would not be a part of it. This is why he told his disciples to be "no part of this world". (John 15:18-21)
So it was always the devil's ambition to be mankind's god and ruler....and he could give rulership of any part of the world to whomever he wished. Do you see it? I believe it is quite obvious.
So don't expect to see justice prevail in this world....only in the one to come. (2 Peter 3:13)
There is....but he has just been horribly misrepresented by fake Christianity. Remember when Jesus warned about the "wheat and the weeds"? (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-43) That parable is telling us that the devil would set up a false kind of Christianity shortly after the first Christians were established. Christendom is a product of those "weeds". You will find no truth in that divided mess. The identifying mark of true Christianity is not division, but unity and love. (1 Corinthians 1:10; John 13:34-35)
Please allow me to recommend a simple book, called "What Does the Bible Really Teach?"
Here is a list of the Chapter titles. Contents — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
It's is a very easy to understand guide to what the Bible really teaches, as opposed to what it does not teach. You may be surprised at what you find. I will leave it with you to evaluate for yourself if you so wish....
There is even a play button if you would like to listen instead of read.
I don't take the old testament as literal history.
what version of the bible do you read?
Is there a reason why you prefer the KJV 1611?
When the KJV first appeared, the English words it used sounded modern. But as time went by, some of those words began to sound old-fashioned, and today they are difficult to understand. The same thing happened with early Bible translations in other languages. So a modern translation is useful, as language became better understood and translation was easier to understand. There is no point in having a book if the language is archaic and is no longer in general use. That is a recipe for misunderstanding.
All of it? Or just some parts?
When I first studied the Bible, all I had was an old KJV (not the 1611 version) and that was good enough at the time. But as I progressed in knowledge I found that a variety of translations gave me a more rounded out understanding of how translation affects our understanding and how important it is to have accurate translation of every word. Having access to a concordance like "Strongs" is also very important so that you can check for yourself if the translation is totally accurate. You'd be surprised at how much bias has crept in over the centuries.
We have our own New World Translation, which has replaced God's name in all the verses where Jewish superstition had removed it and replaced it with a title. (LORD) Nowhere does the Bible indicate that God's name was too sacred to be uttered. Bible writers used it freely and reverently. There is no substitute for the divine name and no human was authorized to remove it from God's own word. (Psalm 83:18 KJV) There is only one "Jehovah" (Yahweh/ YHWH) But we are free to use any translation we like for study. I use biblegateway.com which has a good variety of translations for comparison.
You will notice the importance of this when you read Exodus 3:15, because once you remove the divine mane and replace it with a title, the verse loses its impact. The KJV does not include the divine name in this verse, (not sure if the 1611 have it?) but it was God's name that was given, not his title.
Do you have an opinion on this?