Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?

[Nichomacheo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I don't see how you can say this. Doesn't mathematics govern every interaction in the universe?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be more correct to say that you put those interaction into a mathematical model by abstraction and then treating them in some manner that gives a usable output.

It isn't too different from putting them into language and talking about them, except mathematics is more 'solid' and based on much, much purer logic. Mathematics per se doesn't exist beyond our idea of numbers as a measure of things we see/observe/theorize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain the first paragraph here?

The second part is along the lines of what he was saying. I suppose logic is more fundamental than mathematics. How would you define mathematics?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
He said that I "believe 1+1=2" just as he "believes in God". I say that doesn't make sense, of course 1+1=2 without us. No, he says. In his mind, if math is our creation, its not a valid basis for my argument. So, it was up to me to explain to him why math exists independent of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's at this point that I would have responded by punching him in the throat.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I asked him if 1+1=2 without us, and he says that the concept of "1" doesn't exist without us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even animals can count and understand the difference between feeding one baby or feeding two.

Numbers are simply a human representation of amounts, just like the word earth is a representation of a planet. Earth still exists without the term, just as the fact that there is one earth still exists without the number one.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Nielsio,

I watched your first video. I enjoyed it a lot and it gave me some things to think about. I especially liked "If I tell you x is true, but don't tell you what x is, we're in the field of religion." I never thought about demanding that a theist define the terms they are using. I doubt many can. "[These words] mean nothing at all." Good quote.

[/ QUOTE ]


[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Nichomacheo]

madnak, great post.

Let me see if I understand this. You're saying reality is what actually happens, beyond our perception of the world. We may perceive a relationship and call it reality, but we don't really know whether it actually is reality. In the same way, mathematics is just our way of interpreting relationships.

You make a lot of other good points too.

Thinking back on it, this is what seems to have happened. He starts asking me questions that I do not know the answer to, such as where the universe came from. When I reply "I do not know" it makes my ideas seem incomplete. People listen to him, and his idea's answer that question: "God created the universe." Observers think "Athiest 0, Thiest 1".

What went wrong? I can say, "Who created God?" They can answer "God has always existed." Then what? "What is God?" "God is the creator of the universe." "Oh." "Oh."

[Nichomacheo]

[ QUOTE ]
Even animals can count and understand the difference between feeding one baby or feeding two.

Numbers are simply a human representation of amounts, just like the word earth is a representation of a planet. Earth still exists without the term, just as the fact that there is one earth still exists without the number one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Justin, eloquently put.

[Splendour]

Well read this math major maybe he has some interesting insights into your question. He specifically mentions the 1+1 concept.

http://www.math.sfu.ca/~jrg/scripts/godandmath_1.pdf

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me see if I understand this. You're saying reality is what actually happens, beyond our perception of the world. We may perceive a relationship and call it reality, but we don't really know whether it actually is reality. In the same way, mathematics is just our way of interpreting relationships.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, yeah. It's fine to say we "know" something is reality, but detach yourself from that if someone gets very philosophical on you. We have reason to believe, based on the observations we've made and the information we have, that this is reality, etc. It's all very academic, but it can be important - math isn't "true" so much as it's consistent. Of course, any sentient beings in the universe probably use systems of mathematics very similar to our own - it's just, remember that a diagram of the solar system isn't really the solar system. (That hardly means the solar system doesn't exist, though.)

If your goal is to convince the audience, or even to impress them or just appear credible, it's important to be in control of the discussion. Never let the theist take the reins - if he knows what he's doing, then he'll make things difficult for you, and if he doesn't he'll take you in circles. If you get stuck, sometimes asking questions is the best response - the person asking the questions is often perceived as being the one in control. If the theist demands to monopolize the conversation, give him enough rope to hang himself with. If you're out of your depth rhetorically, stick to logic.

And remember, you aren't making the claim that there is no God - he's making the claim that there is. This puts you in an advantageous position. There are dozens of mutually exclusive religious belief systems out there, and his agenda is to support his own system and only his own system. His arguments will reflect that. If he starts to get very general, making broad points that almost everyone agrees with, tighten things up and get more specific - show everyone that he's being vague.

Always remember, you don't have to defend your worldview - you aren't asking everyone to agree with every little thing you believe. But the theist is often doing exactly that, so all you have to do is expose him.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
As is normal for me, I sparked a discussion about religion at work today. Usually, theist's arguments are weak and easy to address. Today it veered off in a different direction, and I was completely confused as to how to respond to it.

My co-worker's question began as a simple "Where did the universe come from?" to which I responded, I don't know, no one knows for sure, but just because no one can answer it with certainty, it doesn't justify a divine creator. He then asks, "Well, with so much beauty and complexity in the world, are you saying that that came from nothing?" I reply, "The beauty that you see is merely the result of the interaction of mathematics and matter. Mathematics is the underlying language of the universe, and it makes things beautiful." Then he says, mathematics is only a human invention. Numbers do not exist without humans and that numbers are only our way of interpreting the universe. I asked him if 1+1=2 without us, and he says that the concept of "1" doesn't exist without us.

I had no idea what to say. The people listening looked at me like I had lost the argument. How do I respond? And, what's a better answer for the "how is there so much beauty in the world" question?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you could just ask him if a dog would find Jessica Alba to be beautiful and then ask him if he gets your point? Its not really an answer to his question, but it will at least force him to phrase it in the correct way. He isn't asking you about beauty, because thats trivially easy to refute (we are beauty-finding machines so its no surprise we find beauty everywhere) but instead he is asking about order. Thats a much tougher discussion.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me see if I understand this. You're saying reality is what actually happens, beyond our perception of the world. We may perceive a relationship and call it reality, but we don't really know whether it actually is reality. In the same way, mathematics is just our way of interpreting relationships.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, yeah. It's fine to say we "know" something is reality, but detach yourself from that if someone gets very philosophical on you. We have reason to believe, based on the observations we've made and the information we have, that this is reality, etc. It's all very academic, but it can be important - math isn't "true" so much as it's consistent. Of course, any sentient beings in the universe probably use systems of mathematics very similar to our own - it's just, remember that a diagram of the solar system isn't really the solar system. (That hardly means the solar system doesn't exist, though.)

If your goal is to convince the audience, or even to impress them or just appear credible, it's important to be in control of the discussion. Never let the theist take the reins - if he knows what he's doing, then he'll make things difficult for you, and if he doesn't he'll take you in circles. If you get stuck, sometimes asking questions is the best response - the person asking the questions is often perceived as being the one in control. If the theist demands to monopolize the conversation, give him enough rope to hang himself with. If you're out of your depth rhetorically, stick to logic.

And remember, you aren't making the claim that there is no God - he's making the claim that there is. This puts you in an advantageous position. There are dozens of mutually exclusive religious belief systems out there, and his agenda is to support his own system and only his own system. His arguments will reflect that. If he starts to get very general, making broad points that almost everyone agrees with, tighten things up and get more specific - show everyone that he's being vague.

Always remember, you don't have to defend your worldview - you aren't asking everyone to agree with every little thing you believe. But the theist is often doing exactly that, so all you have to do is expose him.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between a map and the territory, man!