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

[Bill the Cat]

What exactly did I say that you are disagreeing with here?

Not disagreeing. Just explaining that a system will dictate the values of the symbols used, and the same symbols in different systems can have different results. Hence 2 + 2 does not always equal 4. The system has to account for both addends being the same, and having the same identity element (typically zero).

[Teallaura]

Exactly!!



Not really. It is an exercise in precision. When we claim something is "true", we must be sufficiently specific. WRT the OP, I've been dealing with Mormons long enough to be specific when I refer to God by calling Him "The Triune God" or to Jesus Christ by calling Him the Jesus of the Bible. That way, they can't concur with my definition, and can't play word games to wriggle around and manufacture common ground.



Right. But you've sufficiently described the problem of ambiguity and assumptions. When we are dealing with God, we assume that we mean the Triune God of Christianity, but to a Muslim or Mormon who happen to come along into this thread, they concur that "God is true". Does that mean that their god is true?



And God in Trinitarian thought is true, but god in Islam or Hinduism isn't. The specifics are there to reject other systems.



Do you now see my true purpose in challenging the ambiguity?



It was never my intention to claim that 2 + 2 = 4 was not true, only that lack of precision allows others to latch on with their own system and claim that their system is equally as valid.

I see your purpose - and it was still pointless. Sure, there is a need for specificity - but not when it causes the very confusion you were trying to avoid. Anyone happening on this thread probably assumed you were arguing against truth, either as a concept or at least in the absolute. You were guilty of the exact same ambiguity - you didn't make your point clear until that last post. So, really, was there a point to making the same exact mistake? Only the few people still following this thread will ever know what you were talking about - defeats the purpose pretty well right there.

I actually agree with the point you were trying to make - but you did it in the wrong thread (Bible has enough trouble 'getting' the hang of debating without the distraction) and so poorly that the point was lost on most of the audience.

I got your purpose - but seriously, do you really think you helped anyone by making it so contentious?

[Teallaura]

You might outline those five steps as you understand them to be. It would be helpful to others.

For the longest time I would argue God is the originator of existence. (Yeah, space-time and matter, Genesis 1:1) But most classical arguments set out to demonstrate, prove the "existence" of God. Well, existence, uncaused existence needs no God. To argue for the "existence" of God is really self defeating. To understand that there is an uncaused existence. And that uncaused existence needs no God. Is key. So either that uncaused existence is the God or there is none. Now as a Christian I know God personally. So I cannot honestly come to the conclusion, there is no God because, there is an uncaused existence that needs no God. God's Hebrew name, transliterated as "Jehovah" and more closer to what may be the original pronunciation, as "Yahweh." The Name is from the Hebrew "I AM" (Exodus 3:14) in the first person. And the third person form is presented as God's Name. And it means "Who Is" or "Self Existent." The latter having the meaning of the "uncreated existence."

So my ontological argument is, there is an uncaused existence. And an uncaused existence needs no God. So therefore either that uncaused existence is the identity of God or there is none.

Also, looking at chaos, chance and the like. They require a fundamental underling order to be. An uncaused order. An uncaused intelligence.

Cause and effect. Cause and effect are a teleological. And even having no first cause. There still has to be an uncaused existence for no first cause to be. And uncased order for no first cause to be. And an uncased cause for there to be no first cause. The uncaused cause is a type of first cause. In that it is ontological, telelogical necessary for there even to be any kind of no first cause of an infinite sequence.

Leo already got this. You keep mish-mashing arguments and skipping steps. To be honest Leo did a better job figuring out this thing than I could. I can't follow exactly what's going on it part of it - it actually sounds like the beginning of an atheist argument. It's all over the chart and hard as heck to follow where you're going with it.

You gotta quit skipping Step Three...

[Bill the Cat]

I see your purpose - and it was still pointless.

Meh. My philosophy teacher in college didn't think so.

Sure, there is a need for specificity - but not when it causes the very confusion you were trying to avoid.

I don't see the confusion. I thought I was pretty clear. 2 + 2 = 4 is only true in systems where 2 and 4 are valid values and are able to be combined but still distinctly countable.

Anyone happening on this thread probably assumed you were arguing against truth, either as a concept or at least in the absolute.

Not my intention. It was only to show that truths must be precise or they become ambiguous and can be challenged.

You were guilty of the exact same ambiguity - you didn't make your point clear until that last post. So, really, was there a point to making the same exact mistake? Only the few people still following this thread will ever know what you were talking about - defeats the purpose pretty well right there.

I can't help that.

I actually agree with the point you were trying to make - but you did it in the wrong thread (Bible has enough trouble 'getting' the hang of debating without the distraction) and so poorly that the point was lost on most of the audience.

Again, I can't help that. An explanation of an analogy can't be really made when it is still under discussion

I got your purpose - but seriously, do you really think you helped anyone by making it so contentious?

I hope so.

[Teallaura]

Play dumb. Uncaused has a meaning of not being caused. Does it not?
Existence has a meaning of being. Does it not?

Uncaused existence. There is caused existence. Space-time and matter.

You do not know God. Prove you do. God is supposed to be an uncaused being. You said, "I don't know what "uncaused existence" means, nor why one should assume that existence must be uncaused." Well there is no uncaused existence there is NO UNCAUSED God either. Nor can there be.

He's not playing dumb - you really do need to define your terms and your argument much, much better.

Your using a variation of the argument that since the universe has a beginning (underlying assumption) it is therefore caused (conclusion). If it is caused, there must be an ultimate Cause (you use 'uncaused cause' which is sloppy) which cannot itself have a cause (or it becomes an infinite regression). Adrift is correct that you have left the problem insoluble. If you can have an uncaused being you can have an uncaused existence which defeats your argument. The actual solution is that the original Cause is eternal, therefore not requiring a cause and differing from the non-eternal universe (eternal things don't have beginnings). But your insistence on using 'uncaused' the way you are is messing up the argument so badly that it cannot be made. The problem is your execution, not the argument itself.

And no, I wouldn't use my restatement of the argument above if I were actually going to argue it - I left out all the niceties that make the argument sound. That's fine for discussion but totally useless for debate and it's what you do constantly.

Really, really, you gotta stop skipping Step Three!

[Teallaura]

Please forgive me. We need to start at a starting point.

Existence exits. Can existence not exist? No. Now we experience temporal existence. The God we know and believe in an eternal existence without a beginning or end.

Now the premise is existence. Existence exists. Question: Is there an uncaused existence? Yes. Now we know this to be God. The atheist or agnostic does not yet.

The quesetion is there an uncaused existence?

The argument, there is an uncaused existence. The uncaused existence needs no God. Either this uncaused existence is the identity of God or there is none.

What in that argument does not make sense to you?

If ontological, does not fit. What should it be called?





That was a jab. Please forgive me. I'm trying to keep it simple. I really am.


We should be able to give reasons to others. Present the gospel to them. That is all we need to do. Give the reasons for our own knowing. And give them the gospel. If they consider God's words as His words they can know too. (John 6:45, 1 John 5:9, etc.)



I have no problem with an infinite regress. Still requires an uncaused existence to be. And such an infinite regress would still required some kind of uncaused cause. Note that. To argue that an infinite regress needs no reason to be so is nonsense. The reason would be the uncaused cause of some sort. At some point something is uncaused.

The fact that God is or is not a material being has no bearing on God being eternal. Now we know God is a Spirit and not a material being. God's messengers are spirit too. Given at times what appears to be material form. Even God Himself appearing did so (His preincarnate Son).
Ex nihilo meaning out of nothing, being from not anything. Since there was never nothingness. What was made was unique. Not made from something else.

If there was really ever nothingness. There would still be nothingness. We would not be here either. Nothing comes from nothingness. There would be no uncaused existence. Nothingness is nonexistent. So because nothingness cannot be anything there was always something. Uncaused existence.

That argument of nothingness belabors the point.

I amened this post because I respect people who apologize when they do something wrong.

[Teallaura]

Meh. My philosophy teacher in college didn't think so.

Well, there's your problem!

I don't see the confusion. I thought I was pretty clear. 2 + 2 = 4 is only true in systems where 2 and 4 are valid values and are able to be combined but still distinctly countable.

It's out of context to the actual issue. And it looks, in context, as an attack on the argument (such as it is) and not the ambiguity.

Not my intention. It was only to show that truths must be precise or they become ambiguous and can be challenged.

But is was the result - heck, even Carry and Pep were losing you.

I can't help that.

You most certainly can - be less ambiguous next time.

Again, I can't help that. An explanation of an analogy can't be really made when it is still under discussion

If your analogy is failing that badly it's time to abandon it and cut to the chase. And seriously, you don't have to leave the analogy hanging in mid air by itself - you can go ahead and present the conclusion from it.

I hope so.

Me too, but I seriously doubt it. This time.

[Teallaura]

No

Does too.

[Paprika]

Please do us all a favor and just shut up.

Nah, I think I'll stick around to point out the flaws in what you spout.

Meh. My philosophy teacher in college didn't think so.

[Bill the Cat]

Nah, I think I'll stick around to point out the flaws in what you spout.

So far you are "0 'fer", so I'm not counting on much more than your ad hominems. At least mine are accompanied with actual arguments.

Jealous Papsicle? Couldn't find anyone to accept your box tops as an admission fee?

[37818]

You gotta quit skipping Step Three...

And step three is?

[37818]

I used two plus two equals four [if in base three 2 + 2 = 11 (base three number four)] as an obvious self evident truth [without respect of base since base 10 is in ordinary use].

Why does truth need God?

[37818]

The discussion is about addition, not multiplication.

No, it is about self evident truth. And the question of such truths in need of God.

[37818]

Does too.

Can you explain why?

[Leonhard]

I used two plus two equals four [if in base three 2 + 2 = 11 (base three number four)] as an obvious self evident truth [without respect of base since base 10 is in ordinary use].

Why does truth need God?

There's a good question here.

The sentence 2 + 2 = 4 (using base 10 here), expresses an abstract truth. And abstract truthes are odd things. I'm not sure how the scholastics viewed them, though I suspect that they considered them to not really exist other than being forms. For example if we conceived of a world where there would be nothing except abstract truthes, then we would be justified in saying that absolutely nothing existed in that world.

I don't think its 2 + 2 = 4 that we need God to account for. I think its the very notion that we're here to think about mathematics, and there's a world where things can exhibit abstract patterns in the first place. Its concrete reality being a certain way which means we have need of thinking like this "Hmmm, my two sheep and her two sheep would together make a flock of four sheep." Concrete objects in the world can instantiate abstract patterns, we can have a house that has a likeness to the abstract object of a square (even though it doesn't exhibit this perfectly).

The very simplest logic, formal logic (true, false, is, and, or, not) requires simple that in the world there are things that have being, and that there is non-being. The universal and consistent difference between being and non-being is why we (implicitly or explicitly) make use of formal logic. And in fact you can derive formal logic simple by considering the difference between something being, and not being. For instance a cup on your table can't simultaniously be said to exist and not exist. From this you get the law of excluded middle (a sentence can't be true and false at the same time). If its false that a cup doesn't exist on your table, then a cup does exist on your table (law of negation).

Now you have a language expressing this objective reality, which is very useful.

Is God required to make sense of this law of logic. I think so, but so far I I think its because He's the one who made anything have being in the first place. Without God there wouldn't have been humans thinking sentences that could true or false, there would only have been non-being*.

*God does have being, but its on a different order than the created order which only has being derived from Him.