But why say they were conceived of at all? I know humans did not invent the truth behind 2+2=4. But what exactly makes you think that it had to be conceived of at all? Why isn't it just naturally true?

The thing is 2+2=4 is a written description of a physical reality. If you take two stones and then grab two more stones, you have four stones, but beyond simple arithmetic math is uncertain and the more we study it the less absolute it becomes, but the absolutes of logic do remain absolute.

2+2 = 4 only stands due to the current configuration of Space/Time/Matter. Change that configuration and the Math may also change accordingly. Logic, then, is only absolute relative to that configuration.

That's an interesting assumption, is there a way to actually confirm it?

No, and with all respect to Tiggs, it isn't. It is a tautology. That the function "+" with arguments "two" and "two" has the value "four" restates the definitions of the terms in quotation marks (inverted commas).

That having two actual-things, and two actual-things more besides, would mean that you had four actual-things, is the modeling of reality by mathematics. Maybe you do, maybe you don't.

Famously: having two cows, and two cows more besides, then you have four cows. Having two cattle, and two more cattle besides, you may well end up with six cattle.

The claim that a mathematical model describes any aspect of the real world is contingent. The body of mathematical statements which the model comprises, however, is tautological, and so its claim to truth is absolute. Possibly useful truth, possibly useless truth, but true all the same, everywhere and always, without beginning and without end.

Cold comfort, however, if the function "+" misrepresents the situation of your cattle.


Sorry, I took you to be a believer that God exists. My mistake, no offence meant.

well atheism has a different definition to everyone. but basically i would put it as one who does not believe in the existance of a/multiple supreme beings/supernatural entities. Alot of people just assume that atheists don't believe in anything, they might just not belive in anything "religous", but in something scientific, or that can't be explained with words or current human knowledge. So depending on the person who is an atheist, thier views could be counted as a "belief".

I am a believer, more than a believer really, that God exists. But you seemed to be addressing being able to conceive the completeness or totality of God. I can know God without knowing ALL of God, just like I know my wife better than anyone else knows her, and yet I don't know all about my wife.

Addition has a temporal property - when adding 2 to the original 2 we assume that the original 2 remains unchanged while the addition takes place.

Currently, Matter is fairly constant. Consider a Universe where matter cycles in and out of existence. 2 + 2 = 4 would not apply within this Universe. Instead, we'd have to develop a set of mathematics that factored in that temporal fluctuation. Maybe the fluctuations are such that 1 in 4 objects cycles out of existence at any given time. 2 + 2, in this case, would give us 3.

Eight bits is right. Mathematics is only logically self-integral.

I am relieved that I got that one right after all .

I brought the issue forward since I was anticipating an objection to the account of conceiving "absolute" without being an "absolute" mind.


That's incompleteness (there are true assertions about God or your wife which you do not know to be true). Logic is known to be incomplete or unsound, so whatever "absolute" means, logical truths are subject to that limitation.

So, it does seem that a "relative" human mind has adequately formed at least two "absolute" concepts, God and logical truth.

That would imply that your original demonstration might show that some mind existed to form the concepts, but a "relative" mind would seem to serve.

Is atheism a logically sound belief? Yes.

There is no evidence to suggest that god exists, therefore there is no reason to believe he does.

You're assuming what we're actually trying to prove. Did the human mind form either of those "concepts." A non-absolute mind can grasp absolute concepts, that does not prove it formed either of those concepts. You need to prove that these concepts were "formed" by the human mind.

Not quite. I am not claiming that your original proposition is false, only that you have not demonstrated it. The possibility that "absolute" concepts were not merely grasped, but formed, by the human mind suffices for that limited purpose.

There is no controversy that it is logically possible that God is the author of logic. The current issue is whether that is logically necessary. You have not shown that to be so, since there is another candidate for authorship who is not eliminated by your argument.

It may be helpful to bear in mind that I am an agnostic, and not an atheist. I abjure that I could prove that there is no god. Perhaps that "statement of purpose" will move our discussion along.

Interesting point. I think it was addressed in the article I quoted though:
source

Man is no more responsible for creating any of the laws of the physical universe than he is of creating the absolutes of logic, man only experiences them and notes them, but he does not conceive them.

There is no absolutes in logic Iams. One persons logic could be percieved fallable by another, it's circular objectivity.

How could a person not conceive it? To experience or form (a feeling), it's all in the varying logic that people indeed
do conceive.

Putting aside the looseness of what you bolded,


I have already addressed that, when I denied that you have eliminated the alternate authorship of logic.

It is fine if you believe that no human has the cognitive sapability to bethe author of logic.But it remains possible that human cognitive capability is enough to be the author of logic.

Since all I have ever claimed is that the question remains unresolved, the possibility of human capability is all I need to deny that a demonstration has been offered.

I do, however, thank you for this exchange.

There are absolutes in logic, the article mentions three:


There are no instances in this universe (that's just to cover the Tiggs factor ), where those laws do not hold, unless you can show some examples where these laws of logic don't hold.




The absolutes of logic would be there whether there was a human mind to note them or not, just like gravity.

Yes, this is an interesting exchange.

Thank you for elaborating Iams.

Now lets say for instance, that a person claims to have seen god, and it answered prayers.
Is this a logical fallacy, or a logical fact?

No prob.

Those statements in and of themselves are neither fallacious nor factual logically.

Please note that the article is not attempting to specifically use logic to prove God so much as posit that the absolutes of logic argue for the existence of God.

The statement below is false
The statement above is true

Interesting.

This disproves the law of non-contradiction?

I didn't study logic, but doesn't Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorum stand as a logical absolute?

Both statements are alternately true, then false, ad infinitum.

This is so damn silly.

Faith is faith and thats all, nothing backs up faith but faith. To argue this is a pointless effort . Thats why the world is in a world of hurt, everyone has a differnt faith. If god truley wanted us to have one true god he would not have created this divide between faiths. One god one people, he failed. Simple as that really. Or did god have a more malevolent way of showing his true nature.

Why did he do this to us? If god created us all, what's with the BS that comes with him and why do we all not get along?

That logic is very confusing. Does anyone understand what it means?

It has long been known that not all grammatical sentences are propositions (assertions that are true or else false).

For a very long time, this was dealt with by saying that the scope of logic was restricted to propositions. The "law" of non-contradiction, like the law of the excluded middle, etc. is not that there is "no such thing" as a non-conforming sentence, but rather that there are sentences to which the laws do apply, that is, propositions.

So, logicians resolved to deal only with propositions, and moved on to other problems.

Among the many interpretations of Godel's Theorem is that there is no general "test" for whether a sentence is or is not a proposition, a test that works in all cases. So, logic cannot be sanitized against non-propositions, since there is no way to tell for sure whether you have succeeded in excluding them or not.

Godel's Theorem has the same "absolute" status as any other demonstrated theorem.

Great post from eight bits on this.

Additionally, as you just pointed out, they are alternately true then false, not true and false simultaneously, so the law of non-contradiction is not actually violated.

I'd disagree. Logicians have been struggling with the Liar paradox for quite some time - since 6 BC, in fact.

From the link:

However, that the liar sentence can be shown to be true if it is false and false if it is true has led some to conclude that it is neither true nor false. This response to the paradox is, in effect, to reject the common beliefs about truth and falsity: the claim that every statement has to abide by the principle of bivalence, a concept related to the law of the excluded middle.

My problem with atheism, personally, is that it uses essentially the same defence as theism.
Basically, neither theism nor atheism can really prove that there's a god.
Therefore, any belief or disbelief in God is a matter of faith.
So, atheists have faith; albeit that there's NOT a God, but still, it's a faith, because it's something unprovable, that is still believed.

I'm agnostic.
Which pretty much goes like: "One cannot currently prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefore, upon a lack of proof for either side, I do not claim to know if God exists or does not."
However, I do believe in a God. But I recognise that it is only a belief. I don't claim to KNOW, and that is the difference between me and a die-hard theist.

I hope I've helped.

Now those are legitimate and logical questions. And the simple answer is... Personification. Its one thing (a leap of faith) to believe there is a higher power (God), its quite another thing to believe this God even has human characteristics.

Isn't it as much a leap of faith to believe He doesn't or can't?

I know this is about atheism vs god, but really its all the same, Religion has been used for thousands of years to control, and likewise the idealogical paradigm of Atheism is simply worship of "Science" as truth...

Why is it then, that science holds gravity to be true(which has nothing to do with electromagnetism) in the face of the most obvious massive electromagnetic behavior of the planets??? C'mon! All 9(10, whatever number i doubt it is such a small one) planets sprawl out from the sun in PERFECT ALIGNMENT.

In a lab test the known equations of electromagnetism were used to simulate a galaxy, fancy that the equation was not only a good simulation, but that also the EXACT spin of the simulated spiral galaxy in question MATCHED the EXACT spin of actual spiral galaxies that surround us!
Link above to PBS show concerning this very phenomena.

And these "scientists" who think they are "experts" cannot discern a simple observation...

Yet another simple observation not taken into account by the Religion of Atheism, Why no-one seems to mind that the people in power(with all the money) are creating ever more destructive technological advances of epic proportions and aren't under investigation.

Atheism is wrong, Religion is wrong, why? Because it is for the same means... Control...

America knows so little of physics they dont know what real world physics are a simulated plane effortlessly slid directly through the building without crumpling, and kerosene created a fire so hot it melted steel, and left a smoldering pile of 1500��° + FOR A MONTH AFTERWARD...............................

For me, and I imagine many others, it is not hard to believe there is a creator of sorts... a force of energy at work. Most people feel this innately. I think its quite a leap of faith though to consider anything more than that, and that includes us being made in God's image, personifying God, etc. It takes faith and humility to believe there is something greater than us at work, I know, and Son I would think you would agree that everyday your faith is challenged in some way. It might not be difficult for you to personify God, because I'm sure you believe that whatever God's will is, God's will is... regardless of what you want or hope God to be/do. But, I think that it happens to many Christians, believers, etc., they fall into the trap of believing God is at their beckoned call, God is supposed to be this/that, God is supposed to act/engage the way that they would. I think that God has been crammed into a box, a prisoner to the insecure heart. This stems from the personification of God.

Very true, arty, that is one of the things that anyone who simply believes in God can quickly fall into: if you're the one giving this "God" power and life by believing in Him, then obviously, He should be at their beck and call. Given the assumption that the being who created the universe is all powerful why does it take more faith to believe that this all-powerful being has the capability to feel anything a human can, and has decided, for His own purpose, that He will make it possible for man to relate to Him by having those feeling than it does to believe He doesn't?

Well, I've never made the jump to say that God is a being at all. As I said, its not hard to believe in an 'all creating source', but its rather difficult to believe this source feels, thinks, relates as we humans do. But from your perspective, I can see how you can make that extra leap, you believe God is a being... so why wouldn't he be able to connect to man on their level, after all, he created the universe? I'm perfectly fine with that line of thinking, I still believe God is the ultimate source of potential, I just do not think it literally controls anything.

When someone is born first and then later someone else looks like them it is always proper to say the younger person resembles the older person and never the other way around. God is a Spirit and if we share anything whatsoever of His nature, maybe just free will and some emotions, then that is us resembling Him, being in His image, and not the other way around. It might be only atheist and small children who actually believe God is an old white haired man in the sky. Quite an unsophisticated view. Another unsophisticated view is God will get mad and punish you. Our own free will determines our fate. Take some responsibility for our own actions and all goes hand in hand with this belief. I do not believe such nor do any of the believers that I know.

Bread and circuses that is all a dumbed down population needs to be controlled. I agree that the American people are highly ignorant in many instances even when they are highly sophisticated in others.

I completely agree 100%. So for me to accept all the scriptural stories, prophesies, etc. as fact (the ones that define a religion), would go against my free will... it would go against my personal logic. I'm not saying scriptures cannot be helpful to someone personally, they've helped me. It was written by humans, for humans... surely there are things in there that can be related to, lessons learned, etc. I do my best to stick to my core principles, I use the universal energy(God) around me to do positive, uplifting things, to work at being a better person, to motivate myself and others. There is always room for improvement, always.

great post arty.....I'd add that as a culture with our religions claiming to already know what is good and right and lay this off on an outside agent or, traditon or, a body of beleifs or, a compilation of literature, is a twofold problem we give liscense to any method possible to enforce that with is called flawless and above reproach and close the door shut tight on any self correction ( history shows us this very loud and clear)

this is what i think to be the problem with religiion, why it has been so harmful.... ....


In essence what we are doing is excusing ourselves from the huge responsibiltiy of being a moral agent in the first place to make our own decisions and take responsibility for them, without a system of self correction in place ( relgion has no such system in place) we breed a static unchanging commitment to status quo but we have to ask at what cost, i 'd say its too high..... .

.I get that theistic stories give weight or clout to points we are trying to make, yet when we dress up our "points' with the 'lord saith" we breed negativety and intolerance, persecution and too oten hatred....

Why is it difficult to believe this source feels, thinks, and can relate to humans? Think about it, you're talking about something (someone?) with the ability to take nothing and make a universe made up of energy and matter, where intelligent beings live. By any definition this "something" has abilities and powers which are just barely imaginable by us, why would feeling, thoughts, and the ability to relate to it's creation be any harder to imagine? Isn't it prideful to assume we can do something (feel, think, and relate) which the "something" which created us can't?


Why is it so difficult for people to conceive of being responsible for their actions and yet for prophesies to be true?

Look, I'm not an omniscient being and yet I can tell how my son will act/react when I tell him he can't go out with his friends next weekend because we're helping a friend pack up to move. I can even tell you what he will say. How is it possible? Am controlling my son? Does he not have free will? No, I just know my son really well, and I also know what it's like to be a 15 year-old. So, if I, a mere human father can tell how my son will act based on my understanding of teenage boy mentality and especially my son's, without impacting his ability to make his own decisions, how much easier would it be for the being who created us and knows us btter than we know ourselves?

Hey Sheri. I agree that people (none of us are excluded) will use excuses for validating what they do... many use religion, many use science, while others blame it on their parents. While I believe that peace, love, and good-happiness-stuff, is something that most people want, I'm also a realist. I know that there will always be conflicts, and there will be times when one must defend and fight for their principles... it is only a natural thing. I don't see religion itself as the problem, I see evil people as the problem, and yes.. I do believe evil exists. I believe the majority of the evil exists within 'big government' politicians... who'd rather exploit and control people. I truly believe that the majority of people who subscribe to a religion are good and decent people. A small percentage is often confused as the whole unfortunately. Whether one believes in a God or not, one needs a strong moral conviction for the betterment of life.

I can't believe for you Son, you must believe for you. I could ask you questions: Why must God be aware of you, think and feel as you do? Why must God have the ability to create and to foresee a scenario? And, I'm pretty sure I'd know what your answers would be.

Your last paragraph is what I mean about personification. Your trying to suggest God would at least act as you would, a Father. Of course, I know, this is how you view God, the ultimate Father. Hey, it works for you, and on a level I understand the significance of that and how that is the basis for your faith and morals. I respect that, I just happen to have a different way of looking at it, that's all.