• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

When does Atheism Become a Belief System

You're the one who said numbers are just an abstract. So, why not prove it out by letting "one" elephant sit on your head and then report back to us?

Failure to do so is an admission that "zero" and "one" are not abstract after all.

Please calamity stop now, this subject is clearly above your level, you are embarrassing yourself.
 
Sure. I have ten thousand hairs on my head but zero dinosaurs. Why is that abstract? It's pretty concrete, even if what happens to not be on my head at the moment is a hat.

No, it's abstract...what kind of dinosaurs don't you have on your head? It's like the old joke: Jean-Paul Sartre sits in a café and says "I'd like a coffee without cream." The waitress says, "Mes excuses, Monsieur, we have no cream. Would you like your coffee without milk instead?" The whole point of the joke is that absence is an abstraction.

There is a difference between having 1 hat on your head, having 2 hats on your head, and having 1 dinosaur on your head.
There is no difference between having zero hamsters and zero dinosaurs. So both are meaningless by themselves.
 
Please calamity stop now, this subject is clearly above your level, you are embarrassing yourself.

So, you are not willing to test your hypothesis. I should have known.
 
No, it's abstract...what kind of dinosaurs don't you have on your head? It's like the old joke: Jean-Paul Sartre sits in a café and says "I'd like a coffee without cream." The waitress says, "Mes excuses, Monsieur, we have no cream. Would you like your coffee without milk instead?" The whole point of the joke is that absence is an abstraction.

There is a difference between having 1 hat on your head, having 2 hats on your head, and having 1 dinosaur on your head.
There is no difference between having zero hamsters and zero dinosaurs. So both are meaningless by themselves.

Except for there being a huge difference between having one pretzel and zero pretzels, you would have had a point. Now does it matter that you have zero pretzels and zero mustard as compared to having one bottle of mustard but zero pretzels? What it you have one pretzel and zero mustard, but one bottle of ketchup? Would that work? Probably. So, it's not really abstract.
 
Zero is no more or less abstract than any other number. Likewise with infinity, with the only exception being infinity happens to be the next number, on through infinity.

But having 5 horses is not an abstraction. Having zero horses or -5 horses is an abstract idea. Absolute zero is an abstract idea. Infinity is an abstract idea. God is an abstract idea.

Infinity is not the next number. Infinity doesn't represent a number. Infinity is an absolutely meaningless idea. Whatever you think of it is not enough. Likewise, absolute zero is meaningless. The fact that you exist to contemplate zero is proof that zero does not exist.
 
Anything can "exist" in the mind only. Ideas exist. Not all ideas have something outside of the mind that correspond in reality. We are able to make things up.

True, although this doesn't explain how they exist in the mind. Is this a part of reality? If so, they do exist in reality.

Anyway, the point is most mathematicians believe mathematical objects, like infinity, do exist outside the human mind, hence they are objective and not created by the human mind. You seem to be taking some sort of mathematical constructivist position without arguing for it. If you say that abstract mathematical concepts are entirely subjective, you have to explain how they can have the seemingly objective qualities and uses they are put to in mathematics, and how we can know what seem to be their objective, abstract properties.
 
Last edited:
True, although this doesn't explain how they exist in the mind. Is this a part of reality? If so, they do exist in reality.

.

How do you know that this line of reasoning is accurate? THe conclusions that something exists conceptually does not mean it is part of reality. What do you mean 'part of reality'?? To me, 'reality' is something that physically exists, and can be examined, or the effects of it can be examined indirectly.
 
True, although this doesn't explain how they exist in the mind. Is this a part of reality? If so, they do exist in reality.

Anyway, the point is most mathematicians believe mathematical objects, like infinity, do exist outside the human mind, hence they are objective and not created by the human mind. You seem to be taking some sort of mathematical constructivist position without arguing for it. If you say that abstract mathematical concepts are entirely subjective, you have to explain how they can have the seemingly objective qualities and uses they are put to in mathematics, and how we can know what seem to be their objective, abstract properties.

Math does not exist independent of human beings. Math was created, not discovered. It is a tool that has some usefulness in helping to describe reality. It is not part of reality outside of human thought.
 
But having 5 horses is not an abstraction. Having zero horses or -5 horses is an abstract idea. Absolute zero is an abstract idea. Infinity is an abstract idea. God is an abstract idea.

Infinity is not the next number. Infinity doesn't represent a number. Infinity is an absolutely meaningless idea. Whatever you think of it is not enough. Likewise, absolute zero is meaningless. The fact that you exist to contemplate zero is proof that zero does not exist.

You could count for the rest of your life and never reach the end of the number string. Why? Because there will always be a next number. They go on through to infinity, which of course, you can never reach. But, it still exists...by definition given.

Now, if you never start counting at all, you will have counted zero numbers. Hence zero too exists. As in zero numbers counted, or zero elephants sitting on the tip of my nose, or zero gods living on Mt Vesuvius.
 
Math does not exist independent of human beings. Math was created, not discovered. It is a tool that has some usefulness in helping to describe reality. It is not part of reality outside of human thought.

I don't think that's true. Math represents real relationships and can be applied to real things. One apple plus one orange equals two pieces of fruit. So, even though apples are not oranges, math serves to unite them and give you two pieces of something you otherwise would only have had one of each. :)
 
Math does not exist independent of human beings. Math was created, not discovered. It is a tool that has some usefulness in helping to describe reality. It is not part of reality outside of human thought.


This doesn't describe its objectiveness, nor the fact that many mathematical relationships are necessary - they hold in all possible worlds. Or do you reject this? If so, it would be good to see in detail how you deal with such features of mathematical objects. At the moment you are just asserting highly controversial things with little intellectual context or detail.
 
How do you know that this line of reasoning is accurate? THe conclusions that something exists conceptually does not mean it is part of reality. What do you mean 'part of reality'?? To me, 'reality' is something that physically exists, and can be examined, or the effects of it can be examined indirectly.


I did not use the term real here originally. But your definition of reality seems strange. Are concepts unreal then?
 
I did not use the term real here originally. But your definition of reality seems strange. Are concepts unreal then?

Let's look at the definition of 'reality'

re·al·i·ty
rēˈalədē/
noun
noun: reality

1.
the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
"he refuses to face reality"
2.
the state or quality of having existence or substance.


Can you show that a concept is something as it truly is?? How would you know or test that?

That is defnition one.

Definition two.. Have the state of existence or substance. Do concepts have a 'state of existence or substance'? They certainly don't have substance

WHat is the definition of existence

the fact or state of living or having objective reality.


Can you touch or show a concept?? No.

So, I would say that concepts are not objectively real.
 
The first definition isn't really a philosophical definition of the real. Besides, those definitions rely on equally contentious terms, like substance, existence, being.

Let's put it this way, if concepts are unreal, does that mean they lack all being? If I think of the abstract concept of a triangle, does it that concept - either in itself or as a mental event - nothing at all?

Or take a term like a married bachelor and our concept of a triangle? Are they equally unreal?
 
The first definition isn't really a philosophical definition of the real. Besides, those definitions rely on equally contentious terms, like substance, existence, being.

Let's put it this way, if concepts are unreal, does that mean they lack all being? If I think of the abstract concept of a triangle, does it that concept - either in itself or as a mental event - nothing at all?

Or take a term like a married bachelor and our concept of a triangle? Are they equally unreal?

Exactly. Like with the triangle, its angles and leg lengths, we can look at a circle. It's real. We can measure its radius. It too is real. As is its circumference and area. All are very real.

What happens when we divide the Circumference by the twice the radius or divide the area by the square of the radius? Voila! We get a consistent ratio called Pi. It too is real, although the number itself is irrational. Therefore, math is real. It defines consistent relationships between objects, relationships which can be repeated by anyone possessing a piece of paper, a pencil and a basic understanding of simple division.
 
The first definition isn't really a philosophical definition of the real. Besides, those definitions rely on equally contentious terms, like substance, existence, being.

Let's put it this way, if concepts are unreal, does that mean they lack all being? If I think of the abstract concept of a triangle, does it that concept - either in itself or as a mental event - nothing at all?

Or take a term like a married bachelor and our concept of a triangle? Are they equally unreal?

A married bachelor is an oxymoron. The concept of a triangle is conceptual.. We can take that conception, and create objects using that shape.. but calling that shape is a 'triangle' is conceptual. Just like saying 'that cloud is in the shape of a cow;'
 
A married bachelor is an oxymoron. The concept of a triangle is conceptual.. We can take that conception, and create objects using that shape.. but calling that shape is a 'triangle' is conceptual. Just like saying 'that cloud is in the shape of a cow;'

I'm not sure what this has to do with the claim that the conceptual is unreal? The triangle is not quite the same as the cloud, as one is an abstract mathematical entity (the concept of a triangle is abstract and universal, not individual and particular like material things - it applies to all triangles, whatever shape or size, location or material) and also has properties that seem objective and necessary.
 
I'm not sure what this has to do with the claim that the conceptual is unreal? The triangle is not quite the same as the cloud, as one is an abstract mathematical entity (the concept of a triangle is abstract and universal, not individual and particular like material things - it applies to all triangles, whatever shape or size, location or material) and also has properties that seem objective and necessary.

seem?? You have to apply the concept to something else to make it objective. It is merely a tool to describe an object. It can be used to describe an object, but in and of itself, it has no existence except conceptually.
 
seem?? You have to apply the concept to something else to make it objective. It is merely a tool to describe an object. It can be used to describe an object, but in and of itself, it has no existence except conceptually.

This is not the view of most mathematicians. Mathematical entities seem to have objective properties - they are not depend upon human arbitrariness, for example exhibiting necessary relationships (that seem to hold in all possible worlds). In this sense some concept certainly seem objective.
 
This is not the view of most mathematicians. Mathematical entities seem to have objective properties - they are not depend upon human arbitrariness, for example exhibiting necessary relationships (that seem to hold in all possible worlds). In this sense some concept certainly seem objective.

What mathematicians can't do is physically show me a number. They can only use a number or numbers as a descriptive quality of something that exists objectively, or they can use it in a purely conceptual way.
 
What mathematicians can't do is physically show me a number. They can only use a number or numbers as a descriptive quality of something that exists objectively, or they can use it in a purely conceptual way.

I'm not sure what the relevance is here. What does purely conceptual mean? Is it unreal? And does that mean the same as nothing at all? If not, what is the difference?
 
I'm not sure what the relevance is here. What does purely conceptual mean? Is it unreal? And does that mean the same as nothing at all? If not, what is the difference?

It does not exist in reality. It is not objective. YOu can't touch it, you can't detect it. It can be used to describe something.. as a symbol. Other than that, you are just trying to analyse things beyond which there is any meaning.
 
It does not exist in reality. It is not objective. YOu can't touch it, you can't detect it. It can be used to describe something.. as a symbol. Other than that, you are just trying to analyse things beyond which there is any meaning.

But you simply seem to be assuming that the real and the physical are the same thing, that everything real is physical. You haven't argued for this though. Why everything real must be able to be touched, I'm not sure.

If it doesn't exist in reality, is it is presumably nothing? You aren't explaining your ontology of concepts. To say concepts can only describes things as symbols doesn't tell us much. Is there a referent for the concept of a triangle?
 
Back
Top Bottom