A question for all Atheists

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?

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?

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.

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

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.

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

It feels like brow-beating when I'm always wrong, and you're always right. 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.

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.

__________________
"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."

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.

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 .

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.

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...

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. 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

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.

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.

__________________
One of the biggest myths told is that being intelligent is the absence of the ability to do stupid things.

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...?