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.

:laugh: I couldn't agree more! Math! :sick:

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.

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.

:rolleyes: You don't even know my middle name. :D

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!! :eek:

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?

Wait, so, Chris...

I'm sorta right?

Huh?

I made a post.
You ignored it because you hate me.

:yup:

There's not really much to say to it, other than this:

1. I hate math, too
2. I don't hate organized religion.
3. You can't really "develop theories" within Mathematics. You can't have the "theory" that this Math answer may have that problem. You just work through the numbers and find out. The theories we're discussing are concerned with the origin of the entire concept.

Happy? :p

No.

You don't like me.

Math was discovered, but the language of mathematics was invented.


What does this have to do with atheists?

STOP YELLING AT ME< OKAY?!?!?!?!:bawling:

Alright, alright, I'm converted!!! Are you happy???;D

God was discovered, his word was written.

What does this have to do with mathematics?

:rotfl:

No comment.


Already went over that...a couple of times. :)

You don't like me! You think I'm retrarded!

:rotfl:

Wow. You misspelled "retarded."

Irony, thy name is Matthew.

It was deliberate, man.

I even made a point of adding the third r so as that it didn't read as retreaded.

Why do you think I added the :rotfl:?

:rolleyes:

Someone wrote "gullible" on the ceiling.

Enough of your thread contamination. Begone, vagabond.

Honestly, I never, ever thought about where math came from. It's unimportant. It's always existed, people just gave it a name. I only have one question, and it's not a diss or anything towards anyone.

A question for all Religious folks

Why does it bother you if people believe in a higher power or not? People get all up in arms over somebody else's choice to not believe in God. It doesn't make any sense. Live and let live. I've had athiests as friends, and none of them forced me to convert to their side, and vice versa. So why the big deal?

Re: A question for all Atheists
 

I wasn't there to observe the event.

Re: Re: A question for all Atheists
 

:idea:

I believe in The Matrix

It's not unimportant. Frankly, it's apathy like that that hurts us all, in my opinion. The worst thing you can do is take a "who cares?" attitude to issues like this.

Okay, so it's always existed. So what of that? Why does the Universe has a roadmap of sorts if it's based on chaos? That's the question I've asked several times now: if it doesn't imply some Higher Power, then why is it here? How do you explain its existence?

It's a simple question...but it appears no one's even TRYING to answer it. Everyone's dancing around it, instead.


Uh, what're you talkin' about? :) You say "people get all up in arms," but fact is, there really aren't any of them here. I only get up in arms when I see something I strongly disagree with. I have a low BS tolerance level. It applies to all issues...not just that of God.


Irrelevant. :) You weren't there to observe The Civil War, but you can comment on its origins. You can read about such things and figure it out for yourself if you really want to.

At its root, Mathmatics is a language. All languages are invented, therefore, mathmatics is an invention.

That relies on a presupposition. If Mathematics is a language, who says all languages are invented? I think you mean that speech-based languages are invented, which is quite a different thing.

Name one language, spoken or not, that was not invented.

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

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.

:p

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.

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.:p

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....

:D

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...:rolleyes: ;)

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? :)

I didn't know for sure. I thought you had, my mistake.

BTW, I was teasing you, of course.:yup:

Of course. :yup:

Don't worry, I'd never, ever allow myself to be the type to read something and then go around spouting off about it as if I'd known about it for years. :) I'm somewhat new to philosophy, theology, and apologetics, so some of these concepts are still pretty fresh to me.

However, there's no doubt that I've found that forums like this one are the best way to test such ideas out, so to speak, to see if they hold up under scrutiny.

Well, in Genesis, didn't God say, "Be fruitful and multiply"? There's your answer to the question; Which came first, God or the slide rule? :yup:

It's not a Who Cares attitude, and don't mistake it for apathy. I honestly believe that while it is important to remember the past or be doomed to repeat it, it is not important to know where math came from. There are many things in this world that we should concern ourselves with, but this isn't one of them. (I have no patience for existentialism....:D )

If you're an Atheist, it is definitely something you should concern yourself with.

I just realized our Head Atheist hasn't weighed in yet. What say you to this issue, fire? I've been anxiously awaiting your viewpoint and/or explanation. :yup:

Did we invent the laws of gravity? No. There you have it! An evidence of God's existence!!!

Listen, this discussion is exactly the same as the one about evolution, it leads nowhere. It's just an excuse for some people to show off their rethorical skills (I confess, do you?). This discussion is also a symbol of a paradox that is the base for this debate:

The human being is intelligent enough to come up with great ideas (Time, Space, God) to explain the world around us so we don't go crazy. But after having discovered (or invented or what the hell ever) these things the human being says: "Hey, this is too good to be natural! It has to be supernatural or a work of the Gods!". So the human being start using its intelligence to prove its lack of intelligence, and that is the paradox.

It's not an established fact, hell, it's not even a fact! But that doesn't seem to be required here anyway... This discussion is completely philosophical, which is fine with me, but to say that loose arguments and assumtions are the same as evidences is naive.

Mathematic is definite (right?). Philosophing about its origin doesn't lead to anything close to definite. This little planet is part of a much much bigger picture and the question of who or what painted that picture (if it was ever painted) will only receive a man made answer after all.

It isn't a paradox, because the "prove its lack of intelligence" part is your own fabrication. Surmising that God exists is not acknowleding a lack of intelligence. It's just acknowleding a Higher Power...there's no inherent paradox.


What loose arguments? What assumptions? Your entire post is some kind of odd appeal to get others to stop talking about this; it doesn't seem to contribute to this discussion at all. It doesn't even ATTEMPT to offer an explanation for the immutable laws of the Universe. So what the heck's your point, man? :)

What's naive is the assumption that everyone here argues for the same reasons you do. I don't argue to show off. I argue because I can't stand what I see as BS, and because I want to do everything I can to contribute to The Great Relearning. If I impress anyone along the way, it's gravy.


The fact that Mathematics is definite is definitely strong evidence of something, because precision always requires explanation.

If we find ten coins scattered on the ground, we assume someone dropped them. If we find ten coins on the ground all lined up, we assume someone put them that way. Precision and complexity imply intelligence and require explanation. "Luck" is a cop-out answer.

Natural selection may, potentially, explain biological complexity in our world; so where's the explanation for the complexity of things that do not breed and evolve?

If you think there is no Higher Power, tell me why these Universal laws exist. I'm sorry, but something akin to "oh, well this is all a waste of time" is not an answer. I'm not going to stop talking about this because you happen to think it fruitless. I argue for many reasons...the ones you mention are at the BOTTOM of my list. If you don't like it, great...then you can ignore this thread. It'd certainly make more sense than arguing, arguing, and then arguing about how ridiculous you think it is.

Frankly, I'm amazed at your post; it's the all-too-common (I'm not exaggerating...it pops up all over the Internet) "we're so small...we know nothing. This is pointless" argument...if you can even call it an argument. By that logic, why should we ever discuss anything that's not definite?

Yoda,

If mathmatics is, as you believe, a discovery, then why must it be taught?

also,

It is my understanding that all mathmatical equations are only theories. And theories aren't discovered, they're invented.

Two things:

1 - It doesn't NEED to be taught. No one was taught Math at first. Like I said: people have, in the past, by your logic, invented the exact same thing besides never coming into contact with each other. Seems rather convienent.

2 - We teach math because it's quicker to be taught about a discovery than to wait around for someone to discover it themselves. Fossils are discoveries...that doesn't mean that when they are discovered every single person in the World instantly knows about them. Mathematics is no different. Just because you CAN discover something doesn't mean you necessarily WILL, which is why we share information and education with each other in schools, forums like this, and all sorts of other places.


Incorrect. Technically gravity is a theory, too; do you think we invented gravity? Certainly not. We just gave it a name. We DOCUMENT gravity. We observe it and write down what we see. It's the exact same thing with Math.

I'm sorry, but this is really grasping at straws. I've asked you numerous questions that you haven't answered which I think clearly demonstrates that Mathematics cannot possibly be an invention; so you brush those aside as if I didn't ask them and then ask your OWN questions? :p

So if I was an atheist (Which I'm not) I should walk around wondering "Gee, I wonder where MATH came from?" That should consume my every waking thought? MATH. Really? :laugh:

Oh, I would so kill myself...

Blame my brother for this little nugget: If God did create math, He didn't WANT us to find it. In the bible, God tried to keep Adam and Eve from eating from the Tree of Knowledge, keeping them innocent and ignorant. The Tree of knowledge. Think about that.....:D

If I walked around all day thinking about the meaning of math, I would put a bullet in my face.

And not even a normal bullet from a revolver. I would shoot myself in the face with a shotgun so that the various pellets would make sure that I died witohut question.

I don't understand what you want from all of us, Yoda. From what I have seen, we have all agreed that math was discovered and not invented. It seems that the root of all your argumentitive threads are for us to acknowledge your faith as an unequivocal reality. That your truth is the truth. Why is it so important to you whether we believe in God or not?

Maybe Pid is right. Maybe this question is not as important as you think it is, or maybe it is to you alone. For me, this is not a question that keeps me up at night. I do have an understanding of it though, just not a definite answer to it.

I believe that the Law of Mathematics is universal. I do not see it as proof of God, rather a proof that for everything that seems unexplainable, there is an explanation. There are significant Laws that the universe seems to cling to. Perhaps for it's own sake of survival. If I had a belief that the universe was alive, you would be hard pressed to deny that belief, because it is a belief based on faith, just as yours is. You prefer a religious reasoning of faith for your idea of what constitutes an explanation of the universe. I do not, nor should I have to defend my reasoning ad nauseum to you. Not that I really mind, but regardless.

I admire your thirst for understanding, and your hunger for knowledge. I do not admire, however, your constant brow beating of people that do not share your beliefs. You may not see what you do in that way, but I have a feeling that there are more than a few of us that do. I, of course, cannot speak for anyone other than myself, and it's quite possible that I'm using language that is a bit too harsh. If I am, I sincerely apologize. I'm also not trying to imply that I dislike the debates, but sometimes they quit looking like debates, and more like sermons.

So, you believe God placed the Law of Mathematics into our hands to learn as we evolve. I believe that the Law of Mathematics is a part of the fundamental Law of the Universe, there because it is. Maybe someday we will learn the truth in life, or maybe only after death.

Yup! Everything I write here is my own fabrication.

Why not? Because YOU say so? Just because I didn't read it in some book doesn't mean it's a worse theory than any other.

I never said believing in God's existence explicitly means acknowledging lack of intelligence, and you know I didn't. I acknowledge a Higher Power too - there's no way the human beings are the ruler of the Universe, even if some of them think so. But acknowledging a Higher Power to me isn't the same as believing in God.

Oh, is THAT what it is!?!

My point is that this discussion is discussed for the sake of the discussion. Do you honestly think that you can convert any atheists by stating that math is the proof of God's existence? I don't think you believe you can. You're just upset because I'm telling you this discussion is totally fruitless.

I believe the question was whether I believe we discovered or invented math. Well, I guess we figured out how some parts of the universe functions, so then it must be kind of a discovery. But what would we have discovered if we were twice as intelligent than we in fact are? Or three times that intelligent? Or if we had two or three more senses of some sort?

Come on, Yoda! Admit that you do it for the fun of it!

The Great Relearning? Is that some kind of republican education program? Back to "the roots"? "The Good Old Days"?

Now THAT is BS.

What?

Laws of the Universe.

A Higher Power? Nature? Constructions of the human mind?

Again, didn't say there's no Higher Power.

Well, as long as I motivate why I think it's fruitless I think I'm entitled to speak.

You have serious problems with taking critic, Yoda. You are constantly telling everybody here "how it is!". And since I don't agree with you I'm just say "No, it's not!". I think I'm explaining my view of the universe fine by pointing out the irrelevance (the way I see it) of your arguments and so called evidences. You think a lot of what your opponents arguments, especially mine, are BS. Well, the feelings are mutual.

I do think we are small. I think we know something but not everything. I don't think it's pointless to discuss, just the way this discussion turned out.

You need order and answers to everything. If I thought there was a chance in hell to prove God's existence or non-existence by theories about the origin of mathematics I would participate in THAT discussion. Since I don't find any valid evidence in your argumentation about God's existence I chose to criticize the discussion as a whole. I'm sorry you can't take that.

Well spoken LordSlaytan, especially this:

So...if math was discovered, there needs to be an explanination for its existance. If precision "always requires explanation", then please explain why God exists? Please propose the explanation as to what created God? Everything needs a creator. If you're just going to say something along the lines of "god was always there", then don't even bother saying it because that is more of a cop-out answer than "luck" could ever aspire to be.

I believe math was invented. If we didn't exist, math wouldn't exist. We invented a system that happens to fit. No we didn't invent gravity...we didn't invent any purposes for gravity...we didn't invent any effects of gravity...but if we weren't around, gravity wouldn't matter at all. It all just goes back to "if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound", I personally don't think it does. Humans invent their own reality, it is different for each person, doesn't make one persons reality any more so true than anothers.

Lemme just put it this way. If we didn't exist...would God exist? Did we discover God, or did we invent God?

Internet was done for awhile. Fear not; I have returned to brow-beat further. :p

Monkeypunch

Funny. :rolleyes: I never said anything even remotely like that. I said it's worth thinking of. I can't exactly be held responsible if you translate "thinking" into "consuming my every waking thought."


Nice try; it was called the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Not the Tree of Knowledge. The idea was that, by eating from it, you were saying you know what was good and bad BETTER than God.


LordSlaytan

It's not. You don't see me PMing people and picking fights. I ask questions. I only argue when argued with. I'm not talking to myself, am I? ;) It takes two. I don't make a point to start arguing, or set out to prove someone wrong. I read things. If I agree with them, I say something to that effect, usually. If I don't, the same applies.

It only becomes a sermon if I start ignoring what people say and going off on pre-written speeches that don't address the questions or opposite side of the issue. I don't think I do that, frankly. I go out of my way to address everything everyone says in response to me, don't I?

How is that equivalent to brow-beating?


A "living" Universe would indeed help to explain the Law of Mathematics, and the other Universal laws out there. Is this what you believe? Even if it were, it wouldn't answer our questions about God: who created this living Universe? Can it be killed? Etc.


If you attribute the Law of Mathematics to the Law of the Universe, we haven't really gotten anywhere. It just asks a slightly different question: where did the Law of the Universe come from? The same questions about coincidence and precision apply there.

Pidzilla

No. A logical chain is not your own fabrication. But saying that one thing implies another without any bridge is indeed a fabrication. That's what I'm saying.


What're you talking about? I didn't read this in a book. Here's why not: because, logically, that's the way it is. You said it was a paradox; I'm saying there IS NONE.

Let's go back to what you said:

"But after having discovered (or invented or what the hell ever) these things the human being says: "Hey, this is too good to be natural! It has to be supernatural or a work of the Gods!". So the human being start using its intelligence to prove its lack of intelligence, and that is the paradox."

What I said before (and am saying again now) is that you're making an assumption: that saying "this is evidence of God" is somehow "proving its lack of intelligence." How do you get to that point? I realize you can't possibly be saying what you are saying, so, accordingly, I'm asking you what you actually meant.


Eh? :) How do you define "God"? It's generally used to describe a Higher Power. Occasionally it's used to describe a Higher Power with some kind of Will. How do you use it?


I'm not upset at all. THAT would be fruitless.

No, I dont' think I can convert anyone. Since when is that the only possible benefit of arguing, man?


I don't do it for the fun of it. If you want to know why I argue, I can tell you. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop making all these assumptions, though. :)


Geez, ANOTHER baseless assumption.

The Great Learning is a lot of things. But what do you care? Clearly you've already decided not only what it is, but that you don't like it, too.


See above: that's merely a semantic change that doesn't address the question. It's the same thing under a different name. It's akin to saying "God didn't create us...aliens did!" The question is the same: okay, if we came from aliens, where did the aliens come from?

If the Law of Mathematics is just one of the Laws of the Universe, how exactly does that explain anything about it? All it does is place it in an arbitrary group/naming system.


I disagree with many, many, many people. As many as I agree with, easily. And you know what? The bulk of them have no problem with me. We don't see eye to eye, but we treat each other with respect.

Let me ask you this: if I have a problem taking criticism, why haven't I once insulted anyone? Why have you used stronger language than I have? Why haven't I made any personal attacks in the vein that you have? And I'm the one who can't take criticism? I implore you to step back and look at the way I've talked to you, and the way you've talked to me.

Your opinions of me are only a reflection of your courtesy towards me. I never said your arguments were BS; it's you that started using harsher language like that. Again...an assumption. I think we both know there's a difference between saying "I think you're mistaken" and "your argument is BS."


With all due respect, that's just very rude. I can take it just fine. I've taken tons of abuse. I've been called everything under the sun for merely disagreeing with others. I've been insulted and even threatened for respectful disagreement. I can take it as much as anyone you'll talk to on here, P.

Statements like "you need order and answers to everything" are just out of line. They attempt to explain what kind of person I am through simple arguments like this. They also express a dismissive "I know your type" kind of attitude. Frankly, that's just impolite.

When my friend tells me something, I listen...even if it's criticism. When someone like you comes along and acts rudely while also trying to tell me about my problems, I find it much more difficult to take what you say seriously. Why should I take advice on courtesy and respect from someone who can't show me either?

Peter returns! Your prescence in this thread is appreciate, oh Orange One.


A fine point, but there is a crucial distinction here that changes the entire issue: the statement "everything needs a creator" is inherently false. Clearly everything cannot have a creator. Something needs to exist for its own sake, outside of everything else. You can't trace everything back to a creator, because the chain would never end.

Therefore, seeing as how SOMETHING had to come out of nothing, or always be here, it can't be called a cop-out at all to say that that thing is God. It might've been God...it might've been the Universe...but it had to be something. It can't be a cop-out to say something was always there if there is no other explanation.


The tree question depends: how do you define sound? :) If it's the sound waves themselves, then yes, it makes a sound. If it's the noises you hear when your ear translates sound waves, then no, it doesn't.

The gravity example doesn't hold; gravity would matter. It keeps the Universe running, basically. And besides: notice that you say, without us, Math wouldn't exist, but without us, gravity wouldn't "matter." You acknowledge that gravity would exist if we did not.

I'll ask the same questions as before: if Math is an invention, why would people the world over come to the same conclusions about it? How did we CAUSE a circle's radius, multiplied by Pi and then by two, to equal its circumference?

Heck, how can it be an invention when all we did was observe something, and give it names? I can't imagine what kind of definition the word "invention" would have to have for that to qualify. Technically we did the same thing with fossils: observed something and named it and discussed it. But we didn't invent them. We observed fossils to exist the same way we observed certain Mathematical principles to exist.


That's an old concept; and, unfortunately, impossible to answer for sure. I think God would clearly exist...though I imagine that depends on whether or not we mean the same thing when we say "God." There's little to no doubt, reasonably, that there's a Something out there.

Dear Yoda,

You've accused me of grasping for straws, I suppose you're right, but you have exceeded my IQ by about 80 points by now, and I'm trying to understand your responses to this the best I can. Please, I'm not saying your wrong, and that I'm right, in fact, I must commend you for explaining your side of this as well as you have already. It has opened my mind a little; it confirms that there can be many answers to a single question.

But there must have been a time when you weren't as sure as you are right now about the answer. logically you must have weighed both sides, and then found a position you could live with. I've read the thread, and your responses, and therein lies your beliefs. But what finally convinced you that math was not invented, but discovered? I mean was there one specific thing?

Or do you know something the rest of us do not?
:suspicious: ;) :drevil:

In retrospect, that was a bit harsh of me to say. I think your arguments don't hold up, but I didn't need to say it the way I did. I hope I haven't offended you.


You're being far too hard on yourself; frankly, you've come off as incredibly intelligent to me. You seem open to the opposite point of view and you make your case rather well. It admit, once or twice you've caused me to pause and re-think things before continuing, and for that, I owe you a thank you. :)


I don't know that I can pinpoint it. There are a few concepts that it's all based around, though:

1 - How can it be an invention if we cannot manipulate it in any way?

2 - If Math, which is all about documentation and naming, is not a discovery, what is? What stops it from becoming a discovery? It can't be the naming system we've given it, because we name all the things we discover, from animals to minerals to disease.

3 - It's too much of a coincidence for people with no contact with each other to come up with the same system. People don't invent exactly the same thing for no reason.

Those are the things that, for me, seal the deal. On the other side of the issue, we can find ways in which Math is kinda, sorta, a little bit like an invention in some vague, small way, but I don't think that even comes close to tipping the scales here.

But what makes you think God didn't have a creator? What is the logic to it? What is the basis to it? What is the reason for saying that, besides that otherwise there would be a large gapping hole in your beliefs.

I agree entirely, but why does God have to be the originator?

Gravity and math are by no means the same thing. Math is a language that attempts to explain gravity. All math does is represent a thought, it doesn't represent anything concrete. Pi may be exact, but it is only exact because we made it exact. If the man who "discovered" pi decided to, he could of given it any other value he wanted, as long as it was congruent with every other equation he used. Its not like if pi weren't what it is, every pi based equation would crumble, the equations would just change. No one discovered any mathamatical equations, they invented them. No one stumbled upon that the circumfrence of a circle was 2pir, they made it so that the circumfrence of a circle was 2pir. Math is all about constants....the constants aren't discovered, they essentially don't matter, they are given values to remain consistent with every other thing, it really doesn't matter what the values are, as long as they are consistent.

pi

You seem to have the idea that people all over the world don't base their ideas off of previous existing peoples ideas....Someone came up with it, and everyone else based their findings off of that. People can discover rocks all over the world, but no one discovers values all over the world, someone gives sometihng a value and the word is simply spread.

Ever taken a math or physics class? You're often given insane constants...like what one Coloumb is....ask the proffessor why it is that and they will say "because that's the value it was given". A constant needed to be reached for everything to work, it doesn't matter what the constant is as long as it can be manipulated to work. If you think there is only one way to find something, you're wrong.

I don't mean a something out there, I mean God; specific to your faith.

Isn't it obvious? If something created God, then THAT is God. :) That's like asking "you say this guy is the oldest...what if there was someone older?" Well, the answer would be that that someone would then be the oldest.


Depends on what you mean by God. Could you be more specific?


They're not the same thing, no; I haven't even implied otherwise. However, they are both discoveries. We cannot manipulate either. All we do with Mathematics AND gravity is name and document it.


I think you're misunderstanding me: Pi is just a name. We could name the number one Pi if we wanted, and it wouldn't change a thing. However, you'd still have to multiple by the number 3.14 to get the desired result. That's just the way it is.

You say constants like that are not discovered...but what are they, then? We did not invent the concept that 3.14 gives us an answer to that question. We just found out that that's the way it always works...so we keep using it. The only thing we made up was the name.

How can something be an invention when we had no choice but to use it the way it is? How can it be an invention when we cannot do anything to manipulate or modify it? What kind of definition to you ascribe to the words "discovery" and "invention" so that something can be the latter when we do nothing but observe it?


People can discover rocks all over the world...but that's vague. The fact that people use the same Mathematical principles always tells us that it's not just our own invention, anymore than observing that certain minerals are inherently denser, for example, than others. If we all came to THAT conclusion by observing rocks, would you call it an invention?

Today, information is anywhere and everywhere. But different civilizations throughout history have had the same basic Mathematical system, even though they had no records of others from the past. What your argument seems to be saying is that people don't discover it because they've already discovered it! That's why it's merely passed along.

And I think you know very well that if we left a group of people to themselves in isolation, eventually they'd yield the same basic Mathematical system as us. How could they possibly do otherwise? What would be their alternative?

The same thing can be applied to fossils, though: you don't base the idea of fossils on your own...someone finds it and you base your knowledge off of that. So clearly this point is moot, as it fits both discoveries and inventions.


No one gave Pi a value of 3.14, because the 3.14 came before the name Pi. Pi is just a name. That's all. No one CHOSE a number to go with that name...we chose a name to go with the number.


I'm afraid I don't see what it is you're asking; would you mind putting it another way?

If I ever mention the word God, I am referring to how you percieve God...I'm talking about the entity you pray to. This is a debate you started and thus I feel any refrences to God need to be in your terms. I'm not talking a "something out there', I'm talking your terms.

You want specifics? Why can't the entity you pray to and you worship not of had an originator?

My whole argument is based off this; if it weren't for us (and when I say us, I mean everything in this universe), then those wouldn't exist simply because we wouldn't be there to give them a name.

By you're deffintion of a discovery, then nothing is an invention...we only discover things, hell we've only discovered that we can invent things, and thus anything invented is just a discovery.

Think of it this way. The wheel is hailed as one of the greatest inventions of all time. But by your deffinition it wasn't invented, because it was discovered that it was the only possible thing that would work...a square won't roll, an elipse won't, a cone won't, but a circle will. Now you can say that a wheel was invented, but the properties of a wheel were discovered, thus leading to its ivention. I find that to be too much of a roundabout way of explaining it.

I don't think it is debateable at all that a computer is not an invention. But ponder this....if every single person on the planet invented one, would it still be an invention or would it be a discovery? If more than one person invents the exact same thing, then by your own logic it shouldn't be an invention, but a discovery?

Who says that the value of pi is exact? How is there any possible way to prove it? Everyone thought the world was flat. Hell, the greek often associated with the first very precise find that pi was more digits than 3.14 denied the idea that the universe was heliocentric. So lemme question you this. If pi is proven to be different than it really is, then it is the number everyone using an invention or a discovery? Read that timeline of the history of pi, there are several instances where the value of pi is constantly changing....this would make the number before it invalid, it just happened to work. 3.14 isn't Pi. ****, pi can't even be calculated to its last decimal to this day. I'm not sure if I'm making my point clear. The next time that pi is recalculated to a more exact number...then what was the number before that was always used? Was it a discovery, or was it an invention? You're saying math is deffinite, obviously not if it is constantly changing.

If we didn't exist...would the entity you worship exist? Did we discover the entity you worship, or did we invent the entity you worship?

Those aren't my terms, though. Often when I use the word God, I just mean "Higher Power." Especially if I'm having a debate about the concept of God in general, and not Christianity, specifically.


Technically, there's no reason. If it did have a Creator of some sort, though, then that thing would be God, as I explained in my last post. Furthermore, the "entity" I pray to would also, most likely, be a liar.

My point's the same, though: your logic doesn't hold. Everything can not have had a Creator, therefore it's not a cop-out to offer up what is essentially the only other explanation.


Eh? If something doesn't have a name, it doesn't exist?


There would be two things I'd say to this:

1 - The analogy of the wheel does not work. You say a wheel does not work; but work for what? Rolling down a hill? An oval WILL roll...just not smoothly. A square can roll given enough force, too.

Math is quite different. It is exact. There is not a less effective version of Math; there is only Math. All or nothing, really. It works, and that's it. There's no other way. You say a wheel is the only possible thing that would "work" -- but work for what? Whatever it is, is it the only thing, or is it simply the best thing?

2 - I can't help but notice that when I ask you questions about what constitutes a discovery/invention, you simply come back with claims about how you don't think my definitions are any good. That's fine; I've got no problem when it comes to defending my own definitions...but what of the questions I ask you? For example:

"What kind of definition to you ascribe to the words "discovery" and "invention" so that something can be the latter when we do nothing but observe it?"


Third time: what, in your mind, constitutes the difference between a discovery and an invention?

Yes, a computer is an invention. If every single person invented a computer SEPERATELY with no knowledge of what any of the others were doing, it would not, by definition, make it a discovery; but it'd be one hell of a coincidence.

That's why I use that analogy for Math; because you've never had groups of people all inventing highly specific IDENTICAL things completely apart from each other like that. The coincidences were always in more basic forms. Nothing as precise and Universal as Mathematics. People have never coincidentally created things like that completely apart from each other. And when they do create similar things, they are never the exact same thing. With Math, however, the principles are always the same because there is NO alternative.

There's not even room to bend in Math. It's precise and exact in every way.


Again: Pi is just a name. A name we give a number. We're not talking about the name; we're talking about the number itself. So what are you asking? How can I prove that a name we gave a number is really the name for that number? Wha? :)


Ah, but don't you see? Math is not changing; our understanding of it is. That's like saying the Universe is changing because our science textbooks are constantly being updated. The Universe was the same all along. We just didn't get it right at first.

That's what Truth is...that's what makes something true; it is ALWAYS true, no matter what we think of it. Truth is not contingent on people believing it.


Why even bother asking? If I really believed we invented God, like a flippin' Palm Pilot, do you think I'd worship Him?

Ok, Yoda... Let's just leave it, ok. I'm not going to lower myself to a fight about who used the BS-phrase first or who called who what first. "You started it!" "No, you did!", I don't need that.

Just one thing... To say that you can't believe in a higher power just because you don't believe in God is the dumbest thing I've ever heard...

I don't really care who started it. I just can't take hypocriscy. I refuse to let someone lecture me on respect when they themselves can't show any.


Eh? Who said that?

What I see usually, is you ask a question, someone replys, then you tell them they're wrong. I hardly ever see you agree with anyone. We're usually always wrong, and you're always right. Oh well, I'm probably wrong about that. ;D

Yes, you are the best at telling everyone they're wrong again. ;D

It feels like brow-beating when I'm always wrong, and you're always right. ;D Even more so when your proof of my being wrong is based on your faith and not with any facts or evidence. You blame people of assumptions, when the entire subject matter of this thread is assumption based. Anything any of us can say about where mathematics came from is conjecture, faith, or assumptions.

I said if I believed that, not I do. How the hell would I know, or you? None of us can know, but that doesn't stop you from telling us we're wrong. ;D

We haven't gotten anywhere attributing to God either, because it's all guesswork. I must admit, it would be nice to figure it out, but we can't. Unless of course, you are right. ;D

C'mon, man...you know I don't just "tell them they're wrong." I explain my reasoning simply and respectfully almost every single time. Honestly, what else do you expect out of me? I don't say things for no reason. I don't disagree with something with rude insults, and I always explain why I think the way I do. I fail to see what part of it bothers you...is it the mere fact that you and I happen to see things differently?


I'm not always right...but I'm less likely to speak up if I totally agree with something.


That's not true; we can use logic to deduce certain things. For example: it's not an assumption to say that the statement "everything has a Creator" is false. We know that can't be true, because a chain of Creators like that would never end. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's philosophy...not assumption.

We can discuss things like Mathematics and come to certain conclusions just by talking about them. We can realize that Mathematics behave a certain way, and we can discuss what that means in the bigger picture. It's just logical deduction. In that sense, the ONLY assumption a lot of this discussion is based on is the assumption that we can rely on logic.

I'll be shocked if you can provide me with just one example of where my arguments consisted entirely of Faith, without any "proof or evidence" as you put it. Maybe not proof (having proof in such matters is incredibly rare)...but evidence? I don't think I've ever thrown utterly Faith-based arguments at you or anyone else in any thread like this ever, frankly.


I didn't say it was wrong; if you asked me, I would, but you already know anyway, and it's a mere difference of opinion. We'll find out eventually.


Depends on what you mean by getting somewhere. Attributing it to God would certainly explain it. A living Universe would too. Atheism does not. Atheism's answer is one of luck, basically: it just does. It just is. And I think, if we're going to be honest with ourselves, we know that if a Creationist gave that sort of answer for something, they'd be (rightly so) accused of trying to pass a cop-out answer off as a real one.

How can you say that we can come to a logical conclusion about the origins of math? It is all conjecture Yoda. Whether we believe it came from a supreme being or not, there is never going to be a definite answer. You're basing your logic on your assumption(faith) that there is a God. That's all well and good, yet it will never lead to an answer that can irrefutably prove where and how...

As far as my teasing you, that's all it is. Good natured at it's core. I hesitate to debate with you though, because it seems that you cannot accept other's beliefs. You've never agreed with me about anything before. Until I met you, I had no idea that everything that I had ever believed true was so utterly false. I have lived a lie, I'm so depressed.:yup:

We don't need to come to a definite conclusion about Mathematics to come to conclusions about where it did NOT come from, or where it's not LIKELY to come from.

None of my arguments require that you believe in God to acknowledge them as logical. None of them at all. I'm sorry, but you keep throwing accusations like that at me with no backing. I defy you to produce something to support that claim.


A gross exaggeration. I'm sure we agree on many things. Taking Saddam out, for example.

But think about this: doesn't it work both ways? According to you, I'm wrong about all those things, too. You and I disagree on things, yet when it comes down to it, I'm the one who cannot accept other's beliefs. You haven't accepted my beliefs either, have you?

You say it as I have not agreed with you. Couldn't I just as easily, and correctly, say that you have not agreed with me? Why am I at fault when neither of us agrees? Because I take the issue seriously enough to provide detailed explanations as to why I've chosen the side I have? Isn't that a GOOD thing?

I already said once I agreed entirely, I'm just curious as to how you can deduce that the entity you worship didn't have an originator.

I'm not saying that, what I'm saying is that if no one is around to name it, it doesn't exist. There is that whole trick question "before the discovery of everst, what was the tallest mountain in the world?" It is Everst regardless if it had been named or not, because there were people who could name it. But if no one is around to name it, implying no one on earth capable of doing it, I don't see it as existing. It goes back to the tree thing, does it make a sound or not. I don't think it does, and you think it does...but there is absolutely no way of proving it.

hehe, just realized I've had this window open since I started my homework...so I'll post this and get to the rest later.

My last post answers that as best I can; if something created the God I worship, then my God isn't really God at all. He's also a big, big liar. :) It also means that the other God would have had to do virtually nothing to correct all these lies, and the billions of people who are worshipping something that is not God. That doesn't ring true...I think, of course, you can see why.


You're telling me that if we all dissappeared from the face of the Earth tomorrow, Everest would not be the tallest mountain in the world?


Well, like I said: it depends on what you mean by "sound." If "sound" means sound waves, then yes, it does make a sound...unless you believe it defies physics simply because no one is within a certain radius.


No sweat. :)

Yoda, do I have to make this any clearer? I'M F*CKING WITH YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE SO EASY TO GET RILED UP!!! I know most of what I've said is a gross exaggeration, I said it that way on purpose. Sheeze.... I've tried to make it obvious with all the ;D;D;D;D.

Except, I am wrong about your using religion as a basis for your arguments, I have been reading over some of your more animated discussions. I could tell that your faith is an under current for your convictions, but you do not use blind faith as your argument. Sorry 'bout that. :yup:

BTW, if you supported my idea's in the elections thread...it be nice to know it. I've hated you all these looong years, when you've loved me behind the scenes...:bawling:

Oh, so I'm a hypocrite now too? When did I lecture you on respect? I have never attacked you personally. In the post I made, criticizing this discussion, I didn't mention any names but you for some reason took it personally and started accusing me of being rude. :rolleyes: And harsh or strong language... Please. I say what I will about your arguments, I don't say a word about you. But I haven't used strong language, for mathematics' sake!

Maybe I misunderstood, but to me it sounds like your respond to my statement means that you think that acknowledging a Higher Power is acknowledging God. Otherwise your respond makes no sense. Because it's not agreeing with what I said, right?

He did say go forth and multiply:randy:

he must have wanted us to be dumb and happy.


(I'm kidding, unwad thy panties those who may take offense)

My mistake; I didn't realize. Partially because some people use smilies as a form of deniability, if you catch my drift.


I did speak up a bit in the Elections thread, a bit. Perhaps I should do so more often. :)


Pidzilla

Oh, come on. Read your post and try to tell me it wasn't over the top. "You need this, Yoda." "I'm sorry you can't take that." "That's BS." Yes, you've been wonderfully respectful. :rolleyes:

It's not that I can't take crap like this; I do all the time. Frankly, this is incredibly tame compared to the insults I get on some other boards (for the most insane reasons, too, I might add). However, it's hypocritical to rant about how I apparently can't "take" something when you yourself seem even more "guilty" of the accusation you're making. You made countless assumptions about not only words I'd used, but my personality in general. I've never found the need to make assumptions about YOU.

A general rule: when you start arguing with the person, rather than their words, you're making a mistake.


I said that God is "generally used to describe a Higher Power." Which is true. How do you differentiate between the two words? Is it sentience? A Will?

Sorry for butting in, but I think there was a misunderstanding here. I'm pretty sure Yoda used the word BS first, but was talking about something general and not insulting Pid. Pid seemed to think Yoda was talking about him personally, and responded in kind. I apologize if I'm mistaken, or if I should mind my own business. :)

Here's a crude thought.

Some people subscribing to this thread believe that math was discovered, some don't. Those that do, argue that math was discovered because so many civilizations use the same systems, albeit different terms, without ever having had contact with each other.

Well I am a person that found this website. It didn't find me. I existed before anyone at this site saw my avatar or my screen name (also, I've never met any of you, but I assume you are all human) Yet, I wasn't invented, nor was I discovered. In fact, I could be anyone. I could make up anything about myself and you would have to have faith that what I was saying was true. I'm not made of flesh or blood on this site, but rather words and syntax.

Faith is all you need in order for math to work. If you believe 2+2=4, then it will be. Then if you can convince everyone that 2+2=4 you have succeeded in developing a following. Which means people will have faith in you; trust what you say without conviction.

Maybe math is not a discovery at all, it's just a lie; something we're taught to believe is true but actually it isn't. I mean think about it; how do you know for sure 2+2=4? What makes you so sure? Just because someone tells you that something IS true doesn't mean it IS.

Faith in a higher power is the same, no matter what that belief is. There is something inside all of us that makes us believe, or want to believe, something outside of reality is true. We constantly try to convince ourselves, and others of this don't we?

Post Edit: Besides, aren't we the only species to use math? Beavers build dams without it, wasps develop architecture and birds build nests without it...?