A question for all Atheists

I asked this on another thread, but it really deserves it's own discussion:

Did we invent Mathematics, or did we discover it?

Isn't it both? We descovered certain laws that any intelligent beings could discover, but we also made up some of our own stuff. Why is this a question for atheists?

What stuff did we make up? As far as I can tell, we only NAMED things that were already there so we could more easily study them.


One thing at a time.

Well, I'm not sure I'm an atheist. I have enough of a suspicion that there is a god out there that you could call it a belief, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is no god at all.

Well, I don't believe I called you an Atheist. If I were to have guessed, I would've suspected so, but I didn't really know either way.

Anyway, anyone can take part in this discussion if they wish; I'm just trying to point a few things out and propose questions that most people simply do not ask themselves.

What parts of Mathematics do you believe we made up?

I know you didn't call me an atheist. I just said that because of the name of the thread.

I'm not sure, specifically. It just seems like we kind of invent guidelines that are necessary for the way we figure certain things, but that someone else might have come up with different guidelines if they had made the discoveries or were expounding on someone else's discoveries. I can't think of anything specific though.

Well, you could say that we developed the theories regarding mathematics, but that it already existed, whether we discovered it or not. Hope that helps your argument...



I hate mathematics. I hate organised religion.

We made up maths classes and mass. That is the bit I dislike.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

I couldn't agree more! Math!

I replied to the other thread, but since you moved the question...

Invention means that the laws of nature are nothing but an outgrowth of human activities; other thinking beings at other places or times may invent completely different systems fitting for their peculiar needs. At the best, we may come up with some approximation to something intrinsically intangible, because there are no absolute truths. This statement, of course, must be an absolute truth, which opens a different can of worms labeled Godels theory.

Discovery means that the laws of nature exist in a defined form, totally independent of humans or anybody else below the level of an almighty being, and that there is a possibility to discover them in total (if there is a finite number of natural laws) or at least in parts and to describe them in some language (including the language of mathematics). Maybe we find only parts, or we see the laws coarse-grained (i.e. in some approximations), but it is out there to be discovered.

I believe that our ancestors discovered mathematics due to particular needs that warranted defining. One case in point:

A 35,000 year old, fossilized baboon bone found in Zaire, the Ishango Bone, is covered with a series of notches or tally marks, which makes it the oldest mathematical object in the world, and the world's earliest number system. The bone is also a lunar phase counter, which suggest that African women were the first mathematicians, since keeping track of menstrual cycles requires a lunar calendar.

As needs are met throughout the history of mankind, curiosity takes over. Mathematics and Language become the end all of the modern thinkers of the day. As new concepts are discovered, so are new needs. When certain civilizations discover a new, bold way of keeping track of seasonal shifts, then a way to make more out of their harvesting becomes clearer, and the drive to make an even more accurate calendar arises. Another case in point:

Mathematics in Africa started much earlier from the first written numerals of ancient Egypt around 3100 BC. Ancient African calendars made use of numbers and calculation at an early stage. Ancient Africans also discovered and use the concept of zero, and wrote several texts on math and other subjects.

Where did zero come from--and what, exactly, does it mean? The Nothing That Is begins as a mystery story, tracing back to ancient times the way this symbol for nothing developed, constantly changing shape, even going underground at times. (The ancient Greeks, mathematically brilliant as they were, didn't have zero--or did they?) The trail leads from Babylon through Athens, to India, then to Europe in the Middle Ages. Brought to the West by Arab traders, zero was called "dangerous Saracen magic" at first, but quickly made itself indispensable. With the invention (discovery?) of calculus in the seventeenth century, zero became a linchpin of the Scientific Revolution. And in our own time, even deeper layers of this thing that is nothing are coming to light: our computers speak only in zeros and ones, and modern mathematics and physics have shown that "nothing" can be the source of everything.

Was zero invented? I think not. As we progress in our own evolutionary way, and our minds are capable of grasping newer and fresher concepts, the more readily we will be able to find the ways to discovery.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Something must have set 2 + 2 = 4 blah blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda yadda, right? I know you too well...




We discovered mathematics, but we invented practical uses to put them towards.

__________________
You're not hopeless...

You don't even know my middle name.

Anyway, that's only roughly what I'm getting at. Mathematics is being found to be applicable to more things all the time...a trend which shows no signs of letting up. I'm not saying something must have set it, so much as I'm asking this: why should the Universe have what amounts to mutha-flippin' blueprints?

What are you getting at Yoda, that it was created by a higher power for us to find and use? That it cannot be a coincidence?

Yeah, what Lord Slayton said!!

I can't even begin to comprehend the mysteries of the universe. I don't rule out the possibility of a God, I just don't have the faith to have blind following in him.(And lets not do the"Do you love your father? prove it!" routine). Part of the perks of being agnostic, I honestly don't know everything the universe has done and will do in its time. All I can possibly know in this lifetime if myself, and thats being optimistic.



Being Agnostic and being Atheist are NOT the same things.

In a way, yes. This is not an argument for Jesus, Christianity, or anything specific. It is an argument for SOMETHING beyond this world, however. I'm not saying some Higher Power intended for us to find it, use it, or anything. That's a seperate matter.

I'm a firm believer in taking one thing at a time in matters of thought. Maybe people reject, for example, the lifestyle of Christianity, without bothering to really examine beliefs. So I say this: start at the beginning. Think about a "something" beyond us. If you conclude there is a something, think about what it would probably be like. Etc.

In short, though, yes, I am doubtful that it could be a mere coincidence. Natural selection may be able to explain biological complexity (though only to a degree, IMO), but it doesn't explain the immutability of Universal laws...because Universal laws, as far as I know, don't breed.

Like I said; this isn't about religion, or following any path of life. I'm not trying to convert anyone. This is about whether or not there's something beyond us, whatever it may be. It seems to me that you've got to believe in one incredibly remote coincidence to deny any Higher Power of any sort. I'm asking you (and the others) what they think of this...and, if they disagree, why.

I've never met an atheist that claimed to know everything the universe has done and will do. Most atheists I know claim that all you have to do to be one is not have a belief in a god at all, and I've always subcribed to that. I'm just curious, do you have a belief in a god?

EDIT- I should have said "most people I know who call themselves atheists"

Well as I said Agnostic is not quite the same as Atheistic. I basically am saying that I don't know if their is a God, but instead just looking at the facts I have layed out in front of me and using logic from there. Atheistic would be saying flat out"You are wrong, there is no God."

Not according to the people I know who call themselves atheist. I would say the majority of the 15 or so I know never make that kind of difinitive claim about a god.

An Atheist is someone who has come to the conclusion that there is no God. It doesn't mean there cannot be one, or that they may not change their mind eventually...it just means that, if forced to decide, they would say no. They do not believe any God exists.

An Agnostic, for one reason or another, won't say either way. Some Agnostics think we don't have nearly enough information to do anything other than guess.

Theists say there's plenty of reason to believe in something-or-other up there.


Exactly. So, laying out the things we've discussed about Mathematics, what conclusion does your logic lead you to? Does it appear more or less likely that a Higher Power of some sort or another exists?