When does Atheism Become a Belief System

[William Rea]

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.

Produce a 5 for me?

The problem is that people are pointing at quantities and saying that the concept and symbol that represents that number exists because a physical quantity exists that the symbol can represent. Mathematics is fundamentally abstract.

If anyone disagrees then the challenge is to produce a number 5 that exists in reality.

 

[William Rea]

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 is fundamental philosophy of mathematics, I'm not wasting my time on it further. If the contrarians genuinely want to understand this then there is plenty of educational stuff out there to explain it.

 

[calamity]

Produce a 5 for me?

The problem is that people are pointing at quantities and saying that the concept and symbol that represents that number exists because a physical quantity exists that the symbol can represent. Mathematics is fundamentally abstract.

If anyone disagrees then the challenge is to produce a number 5 that exists in reality.

Symbols exist, be they the number 5 or letter "a." Added together we can create another "symbol" that exists, 5 am.

 

[devildavid]

Symbols exist, be they the number 5 or letter "a." Added together we can create another "symbol" that exists, 5 am.

What is a symbol?

 

[Quag]

What is a symbol?

It is a common percussion instrument. Often used in pairs, they consist of thin, normally round plates of various alloys.



Sorry I couldn't resist

 

[devildavid]

It is a common percussion instrument. Often used in pairs, they consist of thin, normally round plates of various alloys.



Sorry I couldn't resist

I was thinking the same thing myself. The word cymbal is a symbol we use to describe a particular percussion instrument. The instrument is a real object while the word used to name it is a symbol we use to communicate that. The cymbal remains the same regardless of the word we invent to describe it. The word cymbal is arbitrary, a human invention created to describe something that exists in reality.

 

[Quag]

I was thinking the same thing myself. The word cymbal is a symbol we use to describe a particular percussion instrument. The instrument is a real object while the word used to name it is a symbol we use to communicate that. The cymbal remains the same regardless of the word we invent to describe it. The word cymbal is arbitrary, a human invention created to describe something that exists in reality.

True but my reply was funnier, if I do say so myself

 

[RoccoR]

devildavid, Tanngrisnir, et al,

(TRIVIAL)

Well --- this is screwed-up.

But, of course, there actually is.

Zero.

Zero is an infinite set/array of nothing.

Another abstract concept.

(COMMENT)

Zero (0), (with the additive identity; the number that, when added to another number n, gives n) is in the set of whole numbers (0,1,2,3 ...). Yes the set of whole numbers is infinite (∞) which is simply defined as limitless quantity; the limit of 1/ x as x approaches zero.

Our friend "devildad" is correct when he says: infinity is an abstract concept. But Zero is not abstract.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[calamity]

What is a symbol?

 

[Quag]

Yes I'm in a rather silly mood today

 

[Russell797]

devildavid, Tanngrisnir, et al,

(TRIVIAL)

Well --- this is screwed-up.


(COMMENT)

Zero (0), (with the additive identity; the number that, when added to another number n, gives n) is in the set of whole numbers (0,1,2,3 ...). Yes the set of whole numbers is infinite (∞) which is simply defined as limitless quantity; the limit of 1/ x as x approaches zero.

Our friend "devildad" is correct when he says: infinity is an abstract concept. But Zero is not abstract.

Most Respectfully,
R

Numbers are an abstract invention used to describe relationships existing in nature. The numbers are not real, the relationships we detect and describe by numbers are real. Numbers are a language which connotes meaning to us humans.

Zero is an abstract concept. Zero does not exist as representative of anything. Zero is an irrational concept in the same way infinity is. There are no boundaries and no relationships to describe.

We can describe a relationship using the abstract concept of zero. 1 is 1 more than zero, just like 2 is 1 more than 1. So, again it is the relationships which are real, not the numbers and zero, like infinity is an irrational concept without meaning because neither is confined by a boundary.

 

[RoccoR]

Re: When does Atheism Become a Belief System
Russell797, et al,

You and I read from a very difficult lexicon on "mathematics."

Numbers are an abstract invention used to describe relationships existing in nature. The numbers are not real, the relationships we detect and describe by numbers are real. Numbers are a language which connotes meaning to us humans.

Zero is an abstract concept. Zero does not exist as representative of anything. Zero is an irrational concept in the same way infinity is. There are no boundaries and no relationships to describe.

We can describe a relationship using the abstract concept of zero. 1 is 1 more than zero, just like 2 is 1 more than 1. So, again it is the relationships which are real, not the numbers and zero, like infinity is an irrational concept without meaning because neither is confined by a boundary.

(COMMENT)

Numbers are characters or symbols representing a quantity. The type and characteristics of numbers. Generally speaking, numbers are not abstract any more than letters are abstract or hieroglyphs. I tend to think of abstract concepts as an idea to which a word or phrase refers; with physical object are known as concrete concepts.


A number is to an equation or program as the alphabetic letter is to a word, phrase or sentence. Numbers can be programmed to represent letters, just as letters can represent numbers. Sometimes the two character sets are combined to make a number or letter (15 Base 10 = F in Hexadecimal or = 1111 Binary).

In this case, you and I speak a completely different language when it comes to this topic.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Russell797]

Re: When does Atheism Become a Belief System
Russell797, et al,

You and I read from a very difficult lexicon on "mathematics."


(COMMENT)

Numbers are characters or symbols representing a quantity. The type and characteristics of numbers. Generally speaking, numbers are not abstract any more than letters are abstract or hieroglyphs. I tend to think of abstract concepts as an idea to which a word or phrase refers; with physical object are known as concrete concepts.


A number is to an equation or program as the alphabetic letter is to a word, phrase or sentence. Numbers can be programmed to represent letters, just as letters can represent numbers. Sometimes the two character sets are combined to make a number or letter (15 Base 10 = F in Hexadecimal or = 1111 Binary).

In this case, you and I speak a completely different language when it comes to this topic.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well in that case I would suggest that we are both correct. However, I think my description better suites the context of the discussion.

 

[Wessexman]

Produce a 5 for me?

The problem is that people are pointing at quantities and saying that the concept and symbol that represents that number exists because a physical quantity exists that the symbol can represent. Mathematics is fundamentally abstract.

If anyone disagrees then the challenge is to produce a number 5 that exists in reality.

No, what some of us are pointing out is that mathematical entities and relationships have certain qualities, like objectiveness or the fact they are necessary, that makes it hard to say they are simply the result of human subjectivity and construction. This is doubly so as some of these qualities don't see to hold for physical things (they are contingent, not necessary, for example). It is for this reason that realism about mathematical objects is such an enduring position in the philosophy of mathematics. It is would nice to the see some actual response to these points, rather than hand-waving.

This is fundamental philosophy of mathematics, I'm not wasting my time on it further. If the contrarians genuinely want to understand this then there is plenty of educational stuff out there to explain it.

No, that is the assertion of one approach philosophy of mathematics: mathematical anti-realism. There are also mathematical realists. Indeed, probably a majority of mathematicians are realists, and therefore don't agree with what you quoted. All you and your friends have done is just assume mathematical anti-realism without argument.

 

[Mach]

How do you know there are rules? You can't know what goes on in all the possible universes or other possibilities which may or may not exist. It's not possible to know.

We know their are rules by definition of how we know and how we discuss that knowledge, to begin with.

To discuss reasonably in the English language anything, this requires various rules related to language, logic, and the axioms of reason. And they are self-evident, you cannot deny them without agreeing with them, so there is no debate to be had on that. Rejecting that such rules are implicit in any/all such communication (in any language, on any planet, at any time), is to be in contradiction.

Read your words carefully, no need to appeal to anyone else, or debate anyone on it.
You just claimed "It is not possible to know". This in itself, is a contradiction. More verbose you are claiming:
"I know something that is not possible to know"
Pretty obvious that you're incorrect to state that, don't you think?

Once you allow your self to accept a contradiction as true, you must appeal to faith, and not reason. (and on this forum, become a disciple of Frank).

 

[calamity]

We know their are rules by definition of how we know and how we discuss that knowledge, to begin with.

To discuss reasonably in the English language anything, this requires various rules related to language, logic, and the axioms of reason. And they are self-evident, you cannot deny them without agreeing with them, so there is no debate to be had on that. Rejecting that such rules are implicit in any/all such communication (in any language, on any planet, at any time), is to be in contradiction.

Read your words carefully, no need to appeal to anyone else, or debate anyone on it.
You just claimed "It is not possible to know". This in itself, is a contradiction. More verbose you are claiming:
"I know something that is not possible to know"
Pretty obvious that you're incorrect to state that, don't you think?

Once you allow your self to accept a contradiction as true, you must appeal to faith, and not reason. (and on this forum, become a disciple of Frank).

Ah, then please explain to us the rules of the universe or multiverse, explain time before the universe, and describe the physics of what lies outside the universe or multiverse.

I'll wait. Oh, and good luck.

 

[Mach]

Ah, then please explain to us the rules of the universe or multiverse, explain time before the universe, and describe the physics of what lies outside the universe or multiverse.
I'll wait. Oh, and good luck.

We use what's called knowledge. This was divided into disciplines back in the Greek golden age of philosophy (love of knowledge, you know), where they broke it into the fields we still use today.
To understand the rules of nature we use Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Biology, Astronomy, etc. Less well understood, you move to areas like economics, sociology. And fields that do describe some rules, but focus a lot on the application and enjoyment, the arts. Yet all are still on some level, rule based, and a description of some rules with regards to the universe.

These are part of our standard education in the united states, I don't think I need to explain them beyond pointing out what they are.

As to rules "outside" the universe, only you seem to be making a claim with regards to that. I'm informing you that in the context discussed "rules outside the universe" is a meaningless statement.
It's as meaningless as ayu0yaf0Y)Y, or a square circle.

 

[calamity]

We use what's called knowledge. This was divided into disciplines back in the Greek golden age of philosophy (love of knowledge, you know), where they broke it into the fields we still use today.
To understand the rules of nature we use Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Biology, Astronomy, etc. Less well understood, you move to areas like economics, sociology. And fields that do describe some rules, but focus a lot on the application and enjoyment, the arts. Yet all are still on some level, rule based, and a description of some rules with regards to the universe.

These are part of our standard education in the united states, I don't think I need to explain them beyond pointing out what they are.

As to rules "outside" the universe, only you seem to be making a claim with regards to that. I'm informing you that in the context discussed "rules outside the universe" is a meaningless statement.
It's as meaningless as ayu0yaf0Y)Y, or a square circle.

The only place gods can reside is outside the universe--we've pretty much shown that they cannot exist in the one we inhabit, given our laws of physics and the fact that we have defined to a Tee most all things happening in it. So, I am glad to see you admit that you have absolutely no clue of what is happening out there, if it exists. THe difference between you and I that I see is that I am willing to entertain the thought while you think it "meaningless."

 

[Mach]

The only place gods can reside is outside the universe

Calamity knows that "outside the universe" is a reasonable place to discuss.
Calamity knows what the term "god" means, and that's its reasonable to discuss.

The only thing I know is that you are mistaken on both counts.

So, I am glad to see you admit that you have absolutely no clue of what is happening out there, if it exists.

Non-existence, would imply literally, that it is NOT HAPPENING at all.
To discuss "what is happening out there" would be absurd (it's absurd).

THe difference between you and I that I see is that I am willing to entertain the thought while you think it "meaningless."

No, I've gone further, I've demonstrated why it's meaningless. You are simply refusing to admit it, or show the mistake.

 

[Russell797]

Ah, then please explain to us the rules of the universe or multiverse, explain time before the universe, and describe the physics of what lies outside the universe or multiverse.

I'll wait. Oh, and good luck.

You can't presuppose ideas not in evidence as if they are real. We know of only one universe. We don't know that there is a multiverse, time before the universe or any physics outside the universe or supposed multiverse.

The one universe is all there is as far as we know. That universe is governed by rules which make things possible. If we didn't know any of the rules we would not be able to determine what is possible and what is not. The rules we know, which are the only ones relevant that we know of, do not allow for gods, ghosts, spirits, souls or angels. It is irrational to presuppose ideas not in evidence in order to justify a set of possibilities. Therefore it is irrational to state that god may be possible simply because we can't prove it impossible. You have no idea whether or not god is even a possibility because you know of no rules which would make it possible or even if there are any such rules which would allow or disallow for god other than the ones which create our universe..

We can know nothing of god as determined by reason. There is no rational pathway to any conclusion and that include any possibilities. The idea of god is 100% irrational. There is only one way to think about it..Irrational blind faith.

 

[calamity]

You can't presuppose ideas not in evidence as if they are real. We know of only one universe. We don't know that there is a multiverse, time before the universe or any physics outside the universe or supposed multiverse.

The one universe is all there is as far as we know. That universe is governed by rules which make things possible. If we didn't know any of the rules we would not be able to determine what is possible and what is not. The rules we know, which are the only ones relevant that we know of, do not allow for gods, ghosts, spirits, souls or angels. It is irrational to presuppose ideas not in evidence in order to justify a set of possibilities. Therefore it is irrational to state that god may be possible simply because we can't prove it impossible. You have no idea whether or not god is even a possibility because you know of no rules which would make it possible or even if there are any such rules which would allow or disallow for god other than the ones which create our universe..

We can know nothing of god as determined by reason. There is no rational pathway to any conclusion and that include any possibilities. The idea of god is 100% irrational. There is only one way to think about it..Irrational blind faith.

You're getting warmer. Yes, we know of only one universe, and probably only a limited part of it since we cannot see a damned thing that is going on further than roughly 14 Billion light years away.

So, anyone saying this or that does not exist or cannot exist is full of crap when speaking of things beyond what we can observe. Plain and simple.

 

[Russell797]

You're getting warmer. Yes, we know of only one universe, and probably only a limited part of it since we cannot see a damned thing that is going on further than roughly 14 Billion light years away.

So, anyone saying this or that does not exist or cannot exist is full of crap when speaking of things beyond what we can observe. Plain and simple.

Sure, just like anyone claiming that particular things can exist. My point is though that you can't even rationally suggest possibilities as you and Frank are want to do.

With regard to our light horizon distance of 13.8 billion light years which is expanding outward at the speed of light in all directions, that's still a part of our universe as is what lies beyond the expanding horizon. We have every reason to thing that what is emerging with expanding time is more of the same universe we see around us. After all if we were around a billion years ago the very most distant galaxies we see today were still beyond the horizon. The same laws of nature there too.

However, to speak of realms which we can never, ever communicate with has no meaning. You and I can imagine that those realms exist, and certain cosmological models indicate they exist along with higher (or lower) dimensions), branes, parallel universes and all that stuff. It's interesting, but irrational. There is no evidence, just as there is no evidence for god.

 

[calamity]

Sure, just like anyone claiming that particular things can exist. My point is though that you can't even rationally suggest possibilities as you and Frank are want to do.

With regard to our light horizon distance of 13.8 billion light years which is expanding outward at the speed of light in all directions, that's still a part of our universe as is what lies beyond the expanding horizon. We have every reason to thing that what is emerging with expanding time is more of the same universe we see around us. After all if we were around a billion years ago the very most distant galaxies we see today were still beyond the horizon. The same laws of nature there too.

However, to speak of realms which we can never, ever communicate with has no meaning. You and I can imagine that those realms exist, and certain cosmological models indicate they exist along with higher (or lower) dimensions), branes, parallel universes and all that stuff. It's interesting, but irrational. There is no evidence, just as there is no evidence for god.

My assertion is we do not know what does or does not exist, which by default means it might or might not exist. Ergo what we have not ruled out from existing, just maybe can exist--it is possible.

 

[Russell797]

My assertion is we do not know what does or does not exist, which by default means it might or might not exist. Ergo what we have not ruled out from existing, just maybe can exist--it is possible.

You don't know that "it is possible". You are thinking irrationally. Your way of thinking places you into an endless regression of possibilities. That's why I mention infinity all the time as being irrational. All you know is that you don't know something. That's the end of any rational thought process right there. You have no rational basis to assume "it" may exist or not exist.

 

[calamity]

You don't know that "it is possible". You are thinking irrationally. Your way of thinking places you into an endless regression of possibilities. That's why I mention infinity all the time as being irrational. All you know is that you don't know something. That's the end of any rational thought process right there. You have no rational basis to assume "it" may exist or not exist.

If we do not know what does or does not exist, it might or might not exist. Hence, it may or may not be possible, which can be shortened to, "It is possible."