Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?

[Duke]

I saw a lot of bad replies so I stopped reading, but the point is that math is just a constructed model that we use to describe what we see. There is no governance about it. We modify our models based on what we observe in all of the sciences, and they get better over time.

Math also uses the concept of invariants, and we don't have enough information to find many invariants in the universe. If we did, then we'd be able to model a lot more of it perfectly. For instance, 1+1=2. But for a lot of things, we aren't too good at deciding what "1" even is. In most cases it works, though, so it's useful.

So, there's no belief about 1+1 being 2. It's just a way of describing that when you have a "something" and then another "something" in the same set. "2" is just a name we give to that observable quality of the universe.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Tell him his statement is ridiculous. 1+1 would still equal 2 even if there was no one around to conceptualize it. Numbers may just be a human invention to conceptualize quantities, however quantity is intrinsic to existence.

Stu

[Splendour]

Here's another guy with a position paper on Creation and Mathematics:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/poyth...4Creation.html

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel like I could crush 99% of the atheists in the world if I were to take the liberal theist position here, in front of a random crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aw, you'd just use unfair tactics like not claiming the Earth is 6000 years old [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

But I want to point out the "random crowd" part - the audience is more important than people here are acknowledging. I would say a good criterion for "winning" the debate is bringing the audience closer to your point of view and further from your opponent's - this isn't the same as convincing them of your belief.

Of course, the best result is arguably when some synthesis is discovered, and everyone benefits from encountering ideas that neither side had considered before. But this depends on the goal of the debate, and the specific goal is largely independent of the process of achieving that goal.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
When I reply "I do not know" it makes my ideas seem incomplete.

[/ QUOTE ]

Confidence and authority. Make it clear with body language and tone that you consider this a strength rather than a weakness. You can also use "nobody knows" as a stronger version of the position. Every sword has two edges - you may appear indecisive or ignorant if you don't know, but he may appear to be a delusional crackpot if he has no basis for his convoluted explanation.

"How did the universe come into existence?" Answer A is "I don't know," answer B is "my friend Timmy was walking to school the other day when he tripped over a wormhole and landed on a singularity - it bridged back to the distant past and started our universe, but now Timmy won't come out and play because he thinks he killed his grandfather and ceased to exist." Which answer is more credible?

[ QUOTE ]
How can I respond to "God has always existed"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the universe has always existed. There is no attribute that can be applied to God that can't also be applied to (something else). Maybe we should call the attribute that lets God be causeless when everything else must have a cause "goddiness."

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't consistency the underpinning of truth?

[/ QUOTE ]

Necessary but not sufficient.

All I'm saying is that there are mathematical systems that appear to have no concrete referents in the "real" universe.

[iggymcfly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can I respond to "God has always existed"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the universe has always existed. There is no attribute that can be applied to God that can't also be applied to (something else). Maybe we should call the attribute that lets God be causeless when everything else must have a cause "goddiness."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the right answer. Usually, the "god has always existed" thing only comes up in this fashion.

Theist: But something must have created the universe. It's too complex to come from nothing. That's where God comes in.
Atheist: Well then who created God?
Theist: God has always existed.
Atheist: Well, if God has always existed, then why couldn't the universe have always existed? It's the same principle.

Back to the original point, OP got completely lost here when he tried to use math to explain "where beauty came from". The whole point the theist is trying to make is that the beauty present in the universe is so overwhelming that something must have made it. OP basically ceded this point and in so doing lost the argument, then tried to cover for it, by using a descriptive representation (mathematics) to explain the beauty.

The point is that the universe isn't that beautiful. There are light years upon years of empty space where there's no matter whatsoever. Most of the matter that is present seems to be in largely random arrays. However, the fact that we're around to observe the universe at all is largely dependent on us being lucky enough to develop on a planet where the conditions were perfect for many complexities to develop that are definitely interesting if not beautiful.

Still though, the universe as a whole looks much more like something that randomly happened than the creation of a deity. If God really designed the universe with humans in mind, why is the universe billions of times larger than the planet that occupies the human race completely? Did he make all the stars in all the galaxies, millions of them that are larger than the Earth just for us to look at in the night sky? That seems like a silly if not childish and self-centered representation of the universe. I don't see how anyone can look at the universe as a whole and determine that a deity created it for the use of the residents of one little tiny planet on the outer corners of the Milky Way.

[iggymcfly]

For the record, since we're talking about counters to theoretical arguments, can anyone come up with a counter to this? It's the only theistic argument that I can't find an answer to and I don't even know if I've heard a theist mention it. I think it's something I came up with largely on my own.

Basically, time is nonsensical. Of all the events that ever happened, one of them must have happened first right? But if there was a starting point for time, how do things start at that point? Do they just appear? What made time start then? Either way I think of it, it doesn't make sense for time to either start at one point or to have been going on infinitely.

So, the only thing that really makes sense for time is that there must have been a force working outside time that created the universe. Since nothing in our current universe operates completely outside the constraints of time, that leads to the idea that a powerful force not constrained by time (God?) could have created the universe. I think this argument is strong enough for one to at least consider a Deist position, although I still think Christianity's largely ridiculous. Does anyone actually have an answer for this?

FWIW, I get the idea that just because we don't understand the start of the universe doesn't mean something else created it, and I'm still much closer to the atheist camp than the deist camp. I really don't understand how the universe could have started without a deity though. Anyone have a good answer here?

[CrushinFelt]

Define time Iggy.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Either way I think of it, it doesn't make sense for time to either start at one point or to have been going on infinitely.


[/ QUOTE ]
Just so it's clear -
The above DOESN'T make sense.
The below DOES make sense.

[ QUOTE ]
So, the only thing that really makes sense for time is that there must have been a force working outside time that created the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there someway to share the decoding method you use?

luckyme