Weird argument - positive integer proves god?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-06-2017, 08:42 AM
Weird argument - positive integer proves god?
I have an ongoing feud with a particularly objectionable creationist. TBH it's quite funny seeing him wriggle and twist and demonstrate his dishonesty but he's recently come up with a new version of "Why God Exists".

This is an excerpt from his latest nonsense:

Quote: Maths is a type of information - and information, like truth, is not purely physical.
It can require physical media to make it tangible, but while the physical media is always subject to entropy, information is not. 1+1 = 2 will always be true, it is unaffected by time, or even whether there are any humans left to do mathematical calculations.
Jesus said; Heaven and Earth may pass away, but my words will go on forever. Jesus is pointing out that truth and information are unaffected by entropy.
For example: historical truths, such as the fact that Henry VIII had six wives, will always be true. Time cannot erode or change that truth. Even if all human records of this truth were destroyed, it would never cease to be true.
As the Christian, apologist Peter Keeft has made clear, maths is entirely dependent on a positive integer, i.e. the number one. Without this positive integer, no maths is possible. Two is 2 ones, three is 3 ones, etc.
The concept of the number one also exists as a characteristic of the one, infinite, first cause. - God is one. - God embodies that positive integer (number one/first cause), essential for the operation of maths. Without the number one, there could be no number two or three, etc. etc. There could be no positive numbers, no negative numbers and no fractions.
The fact that an infinite ‘first’ cause exists, means that number one is bound to exist. In a state of eternal and infinite nothingness, there would be no information and no numbers and nothing would be ‘first’. So, like everything else, maths is made possible only by the existence of the one, infinite, first cause (God).

There are so many things wrong with this I'm at a loss to even know where to start because he seems to be mixing mathematics, information theory, entropy and goodness knows what into a jumble of verbal diarrhea. But the positive integer claim is a new one on me. I'm familiar with the ontological argument but this seems to be a rather different in that it mixes in the first cause argument.

The guy he's referring to is actually Peter Kreeft who is a xtian apologist and philosopher and NOT a mathematician.

Any thoughts? Other than it's complete nonsense.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Silly Deity's post
23-06-2017, 08:51 AM
RE: Weird argument - positive integer proves god?
Are negative integers of the devil then?

It's a brain-dead argument. He's just relabelling anything he can think of as God. It's like saying without atoms we wouldn't be here, so atoms must be God. And specifically Hydrogen must be God because it's the primordial form of just a proton plus an electron, and all elements are made from it. Praise unto Hydrogen Dodgy

Fuck I hate pseudo-intellectuals.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like morondog's post
23-06-2017, 08:53 AM
RE: Weird argument - positive integer proves god?
I'm not 100% I even understand any of that lol.

I've found my most recent answer to anything Christians say is:

"If god was [supposedly] present on earth from the beginning of time, right up until Jesus was [supposedly] born ,which funnily enough is between 4-6 BC lol, meaning god was on earth for some 4ish billion years....where is he now? Why has he not shown his face/spoken to anybody/done ANYTHING remotely like the bible suggests in 2000+ years?"

And then you can go into: "What about any other area of the world that didn't know about god during this time? Egypt, North America, South America, UK etc. Why would this supposed god only deal with people living in the middle eastern areas of the world? And not reveal themselves to the rest of the world? How come other cultures can/did pray to other gods for so many hundreds of years and NOTHING happened to them? Wouldn't THE god get angry and SMITE them or something?"

You really could go on and on, but anybody who takes this shit literally is not going to listen I'm afraid. It's getting to the point where they seem to be confusing themselves to make it sounds like it's all true.

"I don't do magic, Morty, I do science. One takes brains, the other takes dark eye liner" - Rick
I now sell T-Shirts Here! Please Check it out Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OakTree500's post
23-06-2017, 08:54 AM
RE: Weird argument - positive integer proves god?
Mathematics was invented by people as a way to model the reality that we perceive. The number 1 is a concept that is meaningful to us but has no actual existence.

Quote:The fact that an infinite ‘first’ cause exists,

Since when is that a fact? Assuming the conclusion does not a valid argument make.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like unfogged's post
23-06-2017, 09:08 AM
RE: Weird argument - positive integer proves god?
Let me clue you in OP. There is NOT one religion worldwide that does not have followers whom either try to debunk science, or, when they cant do that, they try to co opt FAKE MATH and science to point to their club.

I have been debating online for 16 years now. I can tell you not only Christians pull this crap, but Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists too.

A simple google search " Blank(incert religion here)" and the word "science" after it, you will find links to apologists from every religion.

Do it.

Type in

Not just "Christian science"

But also the following.

"Muslim Science"
"Jewish Science"
"Hindu Science"
"Buddhist Science"

The problem is that scientific method itself is not a religion. Your op is full of crap but don't be fooled in thinking only one religion tries to co opt science to get it to point to that club. They all do it.

There were no written religions or nations 300,000 years ago, much less 4 billion years ago when the planet formed. There were no humans 13.8 billion years ago at the time of the big bang. Religion is nothing more than a comic book reflection of our own desires reflecting our evolutionary drive to continue. It is a false perception.

Anyone trying to mix religion with math or science to prove it is not objective. While it is true many religious people can hold science degrees, the ethical ones will leave their personal bias out of the lab. Those people unfortunately are still cherry picking and accepting the parts of science they like, but still ignoring the parts that conflict with their clubs and holy writings.

The arguments are always the same no matter the label, you simply get different characters and details, but the general arguments are the same.

1. I got it right.
2. My holy writing says.
3. My holy hero says.
4. I am unique and original.
5. Science doesn't explain everything
6. Science points to my club.

^^^^ None of that changes the fact that our universe full of an estimated 200 billion galaxies does not care one bit about this planet or our species. Humans are not the center of the planet or universe.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2017, 10:42 AM
RE: Weird argument - positive integer proves god?
(23-06-2017 08:42 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  I have an ongoing feud with a particularly objectionable creationist. TBH it's quite funny seeing him wriggle and twist and demonstrate his dishonesty but he's recently come up with a new version of "Why God Exists".

This is an excerpt from his latest nonsense:

Quote: Maths is a type of information - and information, like truth, is not purely physical.
It can require physical media to make it tangible, but while the physical media is always subject to entropy, information is not. 1+1 = 2 will always be true, it is unaffected by time, or even whether there are any humans left to do mathematical calculations.
Jesus said; Heaven and Earth may pass away, but my words will go on forever. Jesus is pointing out that truth and information are unaffected by entropy.
For example: historical truths, such as the fact that Henry VIII had six wives, will always be true. Time cannot erode or change that truth. Even if all human records of this truth were destroyed, it would never cease to be true.
As the Christian, apologist Peter Keeft has made clear, maths is entirely dependent on a positive integer, i.e. the number one. Without this positive integer, no maths is possible. Two is 2 ones, three is 3 ones, etc.
The concept of the number one also exists as a characteristic of the one, infinite, first cause. - God is one. - God embodies that positive integer (number one/first cause), essential for the operation of maths. Without the number one, there could be no number two or three, etc. etc. There could be no positive numbers, no negative numbers and no fractions.
The fact that an infinite ‘first’ cause exists, means that number one is bound to exist. In a state of eternal and infinite nothingness, there would be no information and no numbers and nothing would be ‘first’. So, like everything else, maths is made possible only by the existence of the one, infinite, first cause (God).

There are so many things wrong with this I'm at a loss to even know where to start because he seems to be mixing mathematics, information theory, entropy and goodness knows what into a jumble of verbal diarrhea. But the positive integer claim is a new one on me. I'm familiar with the ontological argument but this seems to be a rather different in that it mixes in the first cause argument.

The guy he's referring to is actually Peter Kreeft who is a xtian apologist and philosopher and NOT a mathematician.

Any thoughts? Other than it's complete nonsense.
Two fundamental errors here. He treats math and truth as if they are metaphysical rather than conceptual in nature. He calls them "not physical". Well this tells us what they are not, not what they are. Interestingly, whenever Christians talk about "immaterial things", they always give as examples of things that are either conceptual in nature or imaginary. Both of these things are products of the Human mind. They also call their god "immaterial", tacitly admitting that it too is a product of their minds.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like true scotsman's post
23-06-2017, 10:51 AM
RE: Weird argument - positive integer proves god?
(23-06-2017 08:42 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  I have an ongoing feud with a particularly objectionable creationist. TBH it's quite funny seeing him wriggle and twist and demonstrate his dishonesty but he's recently come up with a new version of "Why God Exists".

This is an excerpt from his latest nonsense:

Quote: Maths is a type of information - and information, like truth, is not purely physical.
It can require physical media to make it tangible, but while the physical media is always subject to entropy, information is not. 1+1 = 2 will always be true, it is unaffected by time, or even whether there are any humans left to do mathematical calculations.
Jesus said; Heaven and Earth may pass away, but my words will go on forever. Jesus is pointing out that truth and information are unaffected by entropy.
For example: historical truths, such as the fact that Henry VIII had six wives, will always be true. Time cannot erode or change that truth. Even if all human records of this truth were destroyed, it would never cease to be true.
As the Christian, apologist Peter Keeft has made clear, maths is entirely dependent on a positive integer, i.e. the number one. Without this positive integer, no maths is possible. Two is 2 ones, three is 3 ones, etc.
The concept of the number one also exists as a characteristic of the one, infinite, first cause. - God is one. - God embodies that positive integer (number one/first cause), essential for the operation of maths. Without the number one, there could be no number two or three, etc. etc. There could be no positive numbers, no negative numbers and no fractions.
The fact that an infinite ‘first’ cause exists, means that number one is bound to exist. In a state of eternal and infinite nothingness, there would be no information and no numbers and nothing would be ‘first’. So, like everything else, maths is made possible only by the existence of the one, infinite, first cause (God).

There are so many things wrong with this I'm at a loss to even know where to start because he seems to be mixing mathematics, information theory, entropy and goodness knows what into a jumble of verbal diarrhea. But the positive integer claim is a new one on me. I'm familiar with the ontological argument but this seems to be a rather different in that it mixes in the first cause argument.

The guy he's referring to is actually Peter Kreeft who is a xtian apologist and philosopher and NOT a mathematician.

Any thoughts? Other than it's complete nonsense.

I would just tell him that math is made possible the same way any type of principle is made possible, by man's reasoning mind. And ultimately it rests on the metaphysical fact that A is A.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
23-06-2017, 11:07 AM
RE: Weird argument - positive integer proves god?
What an utter load of shit.

Mathematics is an abstract system we created. 1+1=2 because we say it does, according to the way we define those symbols. The number 1 doesn't literally exist; neither does the number 2 or any other. We can of course apply mathematics to reality, via models.

If he's claiming that "God" exists as much as "1" then he's correct. They are both abstract concepts. If he wants to demonstrate it's actually existent beyond the abstract, he needs to define what it is and then provide evidence. Obviously he can't do that, or he wouldn't resort to this conflation.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Robvalue's post
23-06-2017, 11:33 AM
RE: Weird argument - positive integer proves god?
Theism is incompatible with truth

p1: If truth is the identification of reality based on facts that obtain independent of conscious activity such as wishing, wanting, liking, desiring, or preferring, etc., then truth rests exclusively on the primacy of existence.

p2: If theism affirms that reality is the product of, is maintained by and is alterable by a consciousness, then theism affirms the primacy of consciousness and is incompatible with the primacy of existence and incompatible with truth.

p3: Theism affirms that reality is the product of, is maintained by and is alterable by a consciousness which it calls God.

Therefore theism is incompatible with truth.

If he takes issue with premise one, ask him if he believes that "wishing makes things so"?

From experience the theist will then say no, wishing doesn't make it so for us but it does for God, or something to that effect.

Response: Then theism holds a contradictory and inconsistent view of reality and therefor it is false. It holds that facts obtain independent of conscious activity and that facts do not obtain independent of conscious activity. A blatant contradiction.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
23-06-2017, 11:46 AM
RE: Weird argument - positive integer proves god?
Math is just another type of language, and like any other, it describes the reality we inhabit just as English or any other language.

The big difference is in the precision in which it is "spoken", that precision makes it far superior to any other language in helping scientists & engineers "talk" to each other to create new things and make more discoveries.

I suppose you could use math to describe fanciful ideas that have no connection to reality, just like you can write a book about wizards & witches, but unless you can tie the equations to real observations it's just "fantasy math".

Didn't Einstein add a value to one of his equations (I think he called it "ether") to "account" for some results that he didn't want because he didn't like the implications it had for the nature of the universe? That would be like "Einstein's math dragon", and he later had to remove it admitting it was wrong. I'm gonna have to google it again, it's been so long since I've read his theories.

Anyway... god must be observed to exist first
...then we can build the math that would be able to describe how it relates to the rest of reality.

A friend in the hole

"If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are." - Captain Picard
5
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unsapien's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: