Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Does 2 + 2 = 4 need a god to be true?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    Do you believe in such a thing as uncaused existence?
    Yes.
    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
      Depends on how (and if) you define God. If you define God as the ultimate and necessary source of all rationality, then the answer is yes.
      Qualifier for my amen: "if he exists".
      I'm not here anymore.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        I would say it depends on whether 2+2=4 is a property of our universe or a property of logic itself. Could there be a universe where math works differently? I don't know.

        But the basics of logic do not depend on God. God can't exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way for instance.
        Then God as such is not needed. In my view the basics of logic is of the LORD God.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
          One can easily modify it: if a god is defined to possess the attribute of being the ultimate and necessary source of all rationality, then the question in the title is answered in the affirmative. Whether this god possesses the other attributes you mention are not relevant to the question.
          Defining a god as having a certain attribute does not imply that such a being actually exists. If one wants to assert that a god possesses, amongst its other attributes, the property of being the ultimate and necessary source of all rationality, then they are free to support such a claim with argument. Similarly, if one wants to assert that possessing the attribute of being the ultimate and necessary source of all rationality would necessarily require that such a being also possesses other characteristics (such as personality, intelligence, omnipotence, etc) then they have the burden of proof for such a claim.
          "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
          --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            Then God as such is not needed. In my view the basics of logic is of the LORD God.
            Logic isn't something that is created. It is a language that explains the way things are. It explains rationality, it doesn't create it. So saying "A cannot be A and not A in the same way at the same time" is not something created to be that way, it just the way we describe the way things ARE. There is no way that it could be different. Even when it comes to God. God can't both exist and not exist at the same time in the same way. That is just "truth"

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
              Yes.
              That is in my view of the identity of God and the meaning of God's name, translated as "the LORD," that meaning, "the Self Existent."
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                Defining a god as having a certain attribute does not imply that such a being actually exists. If one wants to assert that a god possesses, amongst its other attributes, the property of being the ultimate and necessary source of all rationality, then they are free to support such a claim with argument. Similarly, if one wants to assert that possessing the attribute of being the ultimate and necessary source of all rationality would necessarily require that such a being also possesses other characteristics (such as personality, intelligence, omnipotence, etc) then they have the burden of proof for such a claim.
                I didn't express myself well: I'm implicitly invoking some type of possible universe argument: in a universe where there exists a god defined to possess the attribute of being the ultimate and necessary source of all rationality (in that universe) then "2+2=4" needs the god to be true.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Logic isn't something that is created. It is a language that explains the way things are. It explains rationality, it doesn't create it. So saying "A cannot be A and not A in the same way at the same time" is not something created to be that way, it just the way we describe the way things ARE. There is no way that it could be different. Even when it comes to God. God can't both exist and not exist at the same time in the same way. That is just "truth"
                  The uncaused existence needs no God. Neither does the fundamental order or intelligence of it.
                  . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    The uncaused existence needs no God. Neither does the fundamental order or intelligence of it.
                    You might want to try typing in English.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      That is in my view of the identity of God and the meaning of God's name, translated as "the LORD," that meaning, "the Self Existent."
                      As was the case with my answer to Robrecht, I find this to be a fairly weak definition of "God." Nothing about "uncaused existence" implies that such an entity is personal, intelligent, omnipotent, et cetera, et cetera. Nor does an "uncaused existence" necessarily equate to "the ultimate and necessary source of rationality."
                      "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                      --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                        I didn't express myself well: I'm implicitly invoking some type of possible universe argument: in a universe where there exists a god defined to possess the attribute of being the ultimate and necessary source of all rationality (in that universe) then "2+2=4" needs the god to be true.
                        Yes, if it is the case that a god has as one of its attributes the ultimate and necessary source of all rationality, then that god would be necessary for 2+2 to equal 4. I was under the impression that the question in the OP was asking whether this situation is actually the case.
                        "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                        --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                          I was under the impression that the question in the OP was asking whether this situation is actually the case.
                          That explains it. I was looking at it from the angle of "what definitions of god imply that "2+2=4" is true only if that god exists?"

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            You might want to try typing in English.
                            So you think the uncaused existence being an Intelligence to be some kind of word salad?
                            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              So you think the uncaused existence being an Intelligence to be some kind of word said?
                              Huh? I am not understanding you. It's like you are stringing random English words together in no particular order. You might want to try more than one sentence at a time too.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                Does 2 + 2 = 4 need a god to be true?

                                If by a god one means a mere deity, then no.
                                If by a god one means the LORD God, then the answer is yes.
                                In a base 3 counting system, 2+2 is not 4 since there is no such thing as a 4 in base 3 counting. The correct answer would be 2 + 2 = 11. So "truth" is limited by the system you are using.
                                That's what
                                - She

                                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 04:55 PM
                                1 response
                                24 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                59 responses
                                281 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                299 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 02-15-2024, 11:52 AM
                                74 responses
                                319 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 02-06-2024, 12:46 PM
                                60 responses
                                337 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Working...
                                X