Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Does 2 + 2 = 4 need a god to be true?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Does 2 + 2 = 4 need a god to be true?

    Does 2 + 2 = 4 need a god to be true?

    If by a god one means a mere deity, then no.
    If by a god one means the LORD God, then the answer is yes.
    20
    yes.
    40.00%
    8
    no.
    60.00%
    12

    The poll is expired.

    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  • #2
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    Does 2 + 2 = 4 need a god to be true?

    If by a god one means a mere deity, then no.
    If by a god one means the LORD God, then the answer is yes.
    No
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      Does 2 + 2 = 4 need a god to be true?

      If by a god one means a mere deity, then no.
      If by a god one means the LORD God, then the answer is yes.
      I disagree.
      "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
      --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

      Comment


      • #4
        Depends on how (and if) you define God. If you define God as the ultimate and necessary source of all rationality, then the answer is yes.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          Depends on how (and if) you define God. If you define God as the ultimate and necessary source of all rationality, then the answer is yes.
          That would seem a particularly weak definition of God as compared to the usual understanding from Classical Theology. Nothing about "the ultimate and necessary source of all rationality" is necessarily personal, intelligent, omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent, for example.
          "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
          --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
            I disagree.
            Please explain how you disagee.
            . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              Depends on how (and if) you define God. If you define God as the ultimate and necessary source of all rationality, then the answer is yes.
              If you believe God is the ultimate and necessary source as you and I do, this does not make it necessary beyond the fact that you believe it so.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                That would seem a particularly weak definition of God as compared to the usual understanding from Classical Theology. Nothing about "the ultimate and necessary source of all rationality" is necessarily personal, intelligent, omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent, for example.
                What do you think would be a better explanation?
                . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  Please explain how you disagee.
                  In order to flesh out my disagreement more, I would need you to flesh out your claim more-- as Robrecht did, for example.

                  In the meantime, I'll simply state that I see no reason why "the LORD God" would be necessary for mathematics to be valid.
                  "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                  --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                    That would seem a particularly weak definition of God as compared to the usual understanding from Classical Theology. Nothing about "the ultimate and necessary source of all rationality" is necessarily personal, intelligent, omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent, for example.
                    Yes, in some respects it is a weak definition of God, 'though those who believe that the ultimate source of rationality must itself be rational, perhaps in some superabundant manner, will see it as a more or less strong(er) definition of God. From my perspective, I do not believe that God can or should be properly defined. This too is a classical theist position regarding God's simplicity, ie, not consisting of genus and species, which is the classical understanding of a definition.
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      If you believe God is the ultimate and necessary source as you and I do, this does not make it necessary beyond the fact that you believe it so.
                      Mere belief does not make what is being believed true. So one can be believing in a fictitious god.
                      Last edited by 37818; 12-23-2014, 01:14 PM.
                      . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        If you believe God is the ultimate and necessary source as you and I do, this does not make it necessary beyond the fact that you believe it so.
                        Of course, which is why neither you nor I believe that God's existence can be rationally proven, at least not to the satisfaction of all. The latter clause is my addition, which you have disagreed with in the past. My view is perhaps more relativist than yours on this particular point.
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I would say it depends on whether 2+2=4 is a property of our universe or a property of logic itself. Could there be a universe where math works differently? I don't know.

                          But the basics of logic do not depend on God. God can't exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way for instance.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                            In order to flesh out my disagreement more, I would need you to flesh out your claim more-- as Robrecht did, for example.

                            In the meantime, I'll simply state that I see no reason why "the LORD God" would be necessary for mathematics to be valid.
                            Do you believe in such a thing as uncaused existence?
                            . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                              That would seem a particularly weak definition of God as compared to the usual understanding from Classical Theology. Nothing about "the ultimate and necessary source of all rationality" is necessarily personal, intelligent, omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent, for example.
                              One can easily modify it: if a god is defined to possess the attribute of being the ultimate and necessary source of all rationality, then the question in the title is answered in the affirmative. Whether this god possesses the other attributes you mention are not relevant to the question.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by lee_merrill, 10-24-2020, 07:58 PM
                              7 responses
                              32 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Esther, 09-27-2020, 02:01 PM
                              57 responses
                              275 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 09-15-2020, 11:19 AM
                              49 responses
                              416 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Tassman
                              by Tassman
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 09-09-2016, 03:27 PM
                              1,037 responses
                              54,174 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post thormas
                              by thormas
                               
                              Started by showmeproof, 01-19-2014, 11:28 AM
                              91 responses
                              19,197 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X