A question for all Atheists

Congratulations; you've completely and utterly missed the point.

I'm not saying that languages (like the one I'm writing this in) are not invented. I'm asking on what basis you've chosen to place Mathematics under the same category.

I'm not sure there is a point to miss.



All I'm saying is that mathmatics is an invented tool. A tool of which is used to explain things. Actually it is a tool, to many, that explains things to their ultimate solutions. Or rather, to communicate any given idea to it's proven end.

A language, any language, does the same thing--explains things-- but to a lesser degree.

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?

Well, my remark was actually a sarcastic comment referring to the discussion we had about evolution in another topic. In that topic you said you couldn't believe in evolution partly because it couldn't be observed anywhere around.

I don't get this discussion.... Are we trying to decide what rules the universe by debating whether math was invented or discovered?

If humanity were to start over, would we or would we not come up with the same mathematical principles under different names?


C'mon, man...I've already answered this question. I think it was on Page 2...

Yeah, ok, I guess I didn't read that....

So, math is the strong evidence of God's existence that you were talking about in the evolution topic? You've probably answered to that here before too but I haven't been paying very close attention to this topic (as you might have noticed). So a straight "yes" or "no" will do very fine for me, thank you.

We discovered it. Even if early man knew nothing about it, it still existed... like a fossil waiting to be dug out.

My succinct dos centavos.

Mathematics is one of the things that serves as strong evidence for God. There's more...but it's a significant part of it, sure.

Why? It doesn't imply something Higher to you?


Well stated. It is clearly a discovery. If you were to put ten groups of people on ten different islands, their languages and cultures would vary, but they'd all eventually come to the SAME Mathematical conclusions. Hence, Mathematics is not an invention like language. It's undoubtedly a discovery.

Master Yoda,

I think it's interesting that you use the words "...come up with..." in one of your last replies.

I'm assuming that what you mean by humanity beginning again is that it would not be the same reality as this one, yet there would be, in your words; 'mathmatical principles'. By that definition, everything might have different names, human kind's beliefs might be a little different and this thread might not exist.

But the same basic needs would exist. One of those needs would be communication, and a form of language by which to use it. Assuming humans would again populate the planet, intelligence would grow and the need to solve problems absolutely would intensify. Different names to scientific methods? Perhaps. But, in my opinion, the invention of 'mathmatical principles' would be inevitable. Perhaps an neverending attempt to explain life itself.

EXACTLY. All the same Mathematical principles would be inevitable. Why? Because they exist outside of us. They are a law that we cannot bend to our liking. They are the way we are and always have been no matter what we think of them. They are set and undeniable. They are unchanging and immutable...just like the laws of Gravity or Thermondynamics.

Language we can change. It can evolve any one of a million ways. The remote island example says it all: the religions and languages may vary...but they'll all come to the same conclusion about Math, basically. This is exactly the way something works when it is discovered: it's there, and it's the same, no matter what. Language is not the same way. It can be bent and modified and need not be any one specific way.

Math, on the other hand, is one way and one way only. People on seperate ends of the world who have never heard of each other come to the same conclusions about Math. Therefore, it is not invented the way a light bulb is. It is discovered the way a fossil is.

Unless of course one allows for chaos... which is also a mathematical certainty.

I do believe mathematical principles exist seperate of us. With no man on earth would not gravity exist?

The sun would rise in the east and set in the west regardless of our presence or lack thereof.

Incidentally, the recognizeable patterns of the sun and moon led to the first rudimentary equations

I see your point. But mathmatics, unlike your fossil example, is not a solid form of matter. It cannot be found by touch, sight or smell. It can only come from a thought or idea. And any thought or idea brought into reality is an invention.

Something has to be made of matter to be discovered? If it's a thought, it's automatically an invention? Are you sure you believe what you're saying? Because if you do, you're inherently contradicting yourself.

True, good point.

I still see mathematics as existing without the necessity of man to prove it's validity. If a dinosaur ate two mangoes in the morning and two in the afternoon his daily consumption of mangoes was four for that day regardless of whether or not someone witnessed it or named it as 'four'.

I'd like to add something...

That only applies to the naming system. The invention lies in our bringing the thought "into reality." The word "one" is an invention...the laws of Mathematics are not. Civilizations who had no idea of the other's existence would both eventually discover that you have to multiply a circle's radius by a certain set of numbers to get its circumference. Their name for that number would differ...but that's it. It'd be the exact same concept.

Uh, yeah something has to be made of matter in order for it to be classified as a discovery. You have to be able to prove to others what it is, and that it exsists or can exist, not just in your mind, but in reality.

And what I said was, "any thought or idea brought into reality is an invention." Like mathmatics.

At first I wasn't able to see where the athiest part of this thread fit into the topic, but now it seems apparent.

This is simply untrue, unless you're using some arbitrary definition of the word "discovery."

A discovery is the act of learning about something that was there even though you did not know about it. That's where it differs from invention: the television did not exist before we made it. It was not waiting for us. It was possible for it to have never existed.

The method of calculating the area of a triangle, on the other hand, is immutable. There has never been any other way to make that calculation. There was no other option for us. If you say we invented it, tell me how: how did we somehow CAUSE a circle's radius, multipled by Pi and doubled, to equal its circumference?

If Math were not a discovery, why would so many people completely cut off from one another all define it the same way, with different names being the only variables?


Yes, but it's the names that are the invention. That's what I'm saying. The concepts are not. We could rename the letters "one," "two," and "three" and Math would carry on as usual. We can not, however, rework the principles of Math.

Honestly Yoda, I do hear and see what you're saying. And frankly 'm just having a hard time wrapping myself around the concept.


So let me get this straight;

Even if humans did not exist mathmatics would.
Which would mean that only a cognizant brain, man, would be able to "discover" math and "invent" ways to use it.
Which means that man was discovered, not invented (it takes only one person to discover a another human, but both to confirm each others existence).

Which means God is, in fact, an invention.

But so many people believe in God....

I can't think of any other way to say it, and frankly, I can't imagine which part is tripping you up. It's pretty straightforward, in my opinion.

Obviously. We didn't invent something that we have no influence over. We merely observe Math. We do not manipulate it.

I guess I would assume so.

This is where you lose me. I don't see the connection from the last statement to this one.

You need to quit reading C.S. Lewis and starting debates about what you've read. Sheesh...

__________________
"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."

This doesn't come from C.S. Lewis at all. Or at least, none of his stuff I know of.

You're assuming I read it in The Abolition of Man, right?