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

[Teallaura]

And step three is?

http://thenamiracleoccurs.wordpress.com/about/

Although I remember this one better (two instead of three):

Pseudoscience-e1347915960580.jpg

[Leonhard]

http://thenamiracleoccurs.wordpress.com/about/

Although I remember this one better (two instead of three):

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3292[/ATTACH]

Just to interpret for you, since you're taking her far too seriously. She was making a joke 37818. I don't think she had a specific outline of steps in mind.

First of all we don't know what conclusion you're trying to end up with:

• God doesn't exist.
• Rational arguments for God fails.
• God exists.

Secondly, you haven't reached any of these conclusions as I've pointed out in my prior post. You've merely stated some trivial truthes, such things existing, and that nescessary existince has no contingency... but you haven't established (unlike Aquinas who does) that there is something which exists nescessarily. You leap from 'things exist' to 'something nescessarily exists'. You do some work... its not clear to... to identify that as God. And then you confusingly say something about existence not needing God... not sure what you're trying to do there.

I have a feeling you're trying to show that rational arguments can't disprove atheists... is that it?

[NormATive]

- Edward Albee, Zoo Story

It's almost impossible to recall what the OP was with all of that bickering and showing off of math skills! But, I think it's a tie. One can't prove the existence nor non-existence of any deity by the truthiness of a simple math equation.

However, I did answer the poll in the negative. I do not think "God" (I presume the thread owner is referring to his deity) is necessary for a math equation to be correct. Mathematics was devised in the minds of humans, so it doesn't necessarily involve deities - unless you wish your deity to be necessary, as some in this thread clearly desire.

NORM

[37818]

Just to interpret for you, since you're taking her far too seriously. She was making a joke 37818. I don't think she had a specific outline of steps in mind.

First of all we don't know what conclusion you're trying to end up with:

• God doesn't exist.
• Rational arguments for God fails.
• God exists.

Secondly, you haven't reached any of these conclusions as I've pointed out in my prior post. You've merely stated some trivial truthes, such things existing, and that nescessary existince has no contingency... but you haven't established (unlike Aquinas who does) that there is something which exists nescessarily. You leap from 'things exist' to 'something nescessarily exists'. You do some work... its not clear to... to identify that as God. And then you confusingly say something about existence not needing God... not sure what you're trying to do there.

I have a feeling you're trying to show that rational arguments can't disprove atheists... is that it?

It's almost impossible to recall what the OP was with all of that bickering and showing off of math skills! But, I think it's a tie. One can't prove the existence nor non-existence of any deity by the truthiness of a simple math equation.

However, I did answer the poll in the negative. I do not think "God" (I presume the thread owner is referring to his deity) is necessary for a math equation to be correct. Mathematics was devised in the minds of humans, so it doesn't necessarily involve deities - unless you wish your deity to be necessary, as some in this thread clearly desire.

NORM

The choice of 2 + 2 = 4 is an obvious abstract self evident truth. It is very very simple. If self evident truth does not need anything else to be true. Then what need is there for a God? None.

I'm sorry if any of my Christian peers cannot follow this.

What can one do if what is being explained is not in the classical writings? No words fit. Now my understanding of God, all truths are dependent up His being. And I am at a loss to make this simple to understand. Where atheism would be obviously as absurd as saying "existence does not exist."

[Teallaura]

The choice of 2 + 2 = 4 is an obvious abstract self evident truth. It is very very simple. If self evident truth does not need anything else to be true. Then what need is there for a God? None.

I'm sorry if any of my Christian peers cannot follow this.

What can one do if what is being explained is not in the classical writings? No words fit. Now my understanding of God, all truths are dependent up His being. And I am at a loss to make this simple to understand. Where atheism would be obviously as absurd as saying "now does not exist."

Okay, this is why you aren't getting anywhere - your premise is fallacious. If X is true and self evident we will assume X is what you mean by self evident truth. HOWEVER being self evident does NOT establish something as true. You're committing the a priori fallacy by assuming that merely because X happens to be a self evident truth (I'm granting such exists as defined) that the truth of same relates to the fact that it happens to be self evident. This is not the case. X is true regardless of whether or not it is also self evident. Whether or not it 'needs' something else to be true cannot be established by the mere fact that X happens to be self evident.

Further, the conclusion is NECESSARILY FALSE. Of course it needs something to be true. In the case of the example, it needs either/both reality to exist and/or logic to exist or the statement is absurd (even abstractions need conceptions). As a Christian, I'd argue that both reality (at least the physical world for our purposes here) and logic exist because they derive ultimately from God (Sparky, down boy.) hence it's necessarily true that 2 + 2 = 4 can only exist because God does.

I voted the opposite in your poll because I understand that my a priori assumption is not mutually agreed to and in that case it would have to be established in order to make the argument I just did. Starting without the assumption of God's existence, the correct answer is 'dunno, we have to figure out if God exists first but if not, no." From a reasoning POV we assume not until and unless the assumption of God's existence is accepted, hence no being the 'default' (I HATE that term) position.

As to the rest would you PLEASE start using verbs, nouns and prepositions where they are supposed to be? I have no earthly idea what you are talking about in the next paragraphs - I can't even parse it out to make sense. Go back and fill in the blanks and we'll talk.

[37818]

Okay, this is why you aren't getting anywhere - your premise is fallacious. If X is true and self evident we will assume X is what you mean by self evident truth. HOWEVER being self evident does NOT establish something as true. You're committing the a priori fallacy by assuming that merely because X happens to be a self evident truth (I'm granting such exists as defined) that the truth of same relates to the fact that it happens to be self evident. This is not the case. X is true regardless of whether or not it is also self evident. Whether or not it 'needs' something else to be true cannot be established by the mere fact that X happens to be self evident.

Further, the conclusion is NECESSARILY FALSE. Of course it needs something to be true. In the case of the example, it needs either/both reality to exist and/or logic to exist or the statement is absurd (even abstractions need conceptions). As a Christian, I'd argue that both reality (at least the physical world for our purposes here) and logic exist because they derive ultimately from God (Sparky, down boy.) hence it's necessarily true that 2 + 2 = 4 can only exist because God does.

I voted the opposite in your poll because I understand that my a priori assumption is not mutually agreed to and in that case it would have to be established in order to make the argument I just did. Starting without the assumption of God's existence, the correct answer is 'dunno, we have to figure out if God exists first but if not, no." From a reasoning POV we assume not until and unless the assumption of God's existence is accepted, hence no being the 'default' (I HATE that term) position.

As to the rest would you PLEASE start using verbs, nouns and prepositions where they are supposed to be? I have no earthly idea what you are talking about in the next paragraphs - I can't even parse it out to make sense. Go back and fill in the blanks and we'll talk.

Your fallacy is yours. Either something is true or not a truth. What is a truth is immutable. Truth follows the law of non-contradiction. The law of identity. The law of the excluded middle.

As for your comments on my poor grammar. Noted. Some ideas are hard to get across, with good grammar. So errors in grammar do not help.

Starting point: There is an uncaused existence. (Not to be confused with space-time and matter, OK?)

Second point: An uncaused existence needs no God. (It is uncaused.)

Argument: That the uncaused existence needs no God. So either that uncaused existence is the identity of God (YHWH) or there is no God. (Now what do you want to name this argument?)

[Soyeong]

Why should 2+2 equal 4 every time we add them together unless there is something making it so?

[37818]

It depends on the argument, but many (maybe even most) good apologetic arguments presume non-existence, and then, following inductive or deductive reasoning, work towards existence.

Show me one example of presuming non-existence prior to proof of God.

Source: Anslem's Ontological argument -

Therefore, Lord, who grant understanding to faith, grant me that, in so far as you know it beneficial, I understand that you are as we believe and you are that which we believe. Now we believe that you are something than which nothing greater can be imagined.

Then is there no such nature, since the fool has said in his heart: God is not? But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying - something than which nothing greater can be imagined - understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is.

For when a painter imagines beforehand what he is going to make, he has in his undertanding what he has not yet made but he does not yet understand that it is. But when he has already painted it, he both has in his understanding what he has already painted and understands that it is.
Therefore even the fool is bound to agree that there is at least in the understanding something than which nothing greater can be imagined, because when he hears this he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding.

And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater. Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be. There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality.

© Copyright Original Source

Even in Anselm's argument he presumes existence, ". . . There exists, . . ."

[Adrift]

Show me one example of presuming non-existence prior to proof of God.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

[37818]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Really? What is the first clause of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? What does that clause presume?

[Teallaura]

Your fallacy is yours. Either something is true or not a truth. What is a truth is immutable. Truth follows the law of non-contradiction. The law of identity. The law of the excluded middle.

As for your comments on my poor grammar. Noted. Some ideas are hard to get across, with good grammar. So errors in grammar do not help.

Starting point: There is an uncaused existence. (Not to be confused with space-time and matter, OK?)

Second point: An uncaused existence needs no God. (It is uncaused.)

Argument: That the uncaused existence needs no God. So either that uncaused existence is the identity of God (YHWH) or there is no God. (Now what do you want to name this argument?)

1) You denying that you committed a fallacy then telling me I committed one - without mentioning which one - sounds like a kid in a school yard and proves nothing. Point stands.

2) Good, glad you agree. It would help a lot if you would be more careful about your sentence structure and the effort is appreciated.

3) It looks like a bad rehash of the beginning of the Kalam argument.

Point one is presumably a foundational assumption - gonna be a big problem if someone rejects it.

Point two needs to be established (why doesn't it need a god? Merely being uncaused doesn't preclude it worshiping a god. You presumably mean 'to exist' but being uncaused doesn't preclude that, either - it could be uncaused and still have another 'god' existence to worship. This is why the wording is so sloppy - it leaves all sorts of possibilities wide open.).

Argument: restating the second point is NOT an argument. As previously noted, there are other open possibilities so neither conclusion is necessarily true.

Also, there's nothing at all in your argument that would lead us to the conclusion that the 'uncaused existence', if God, must necessarily be the Judeo-Christian God (YHWH). Identifying such an entity is another argument altogether.

I'd call it 'mud'.

Here's the formal version of the argument you're using for your basis. Study it. Kalam Cosmological Argument.

[Adrift]

Really? What is the first clause of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? What does that clause presume?

The first proposition of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is that Whatever begins to exist has a cause to its existence. But that doesn't seem to me to be a proposition that presumes existence. Its just describing how existence (if it exists) is. Its not till we get to the second proposition, The universe began to exist, that we presume existence.

[Teallaura]

The first proposition of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is that Whatever begins to exist has a cause to its existence. But that doesn't seem to me to be a proposition that presumes existence. Its just describing how existence (if it exists) is. Its not till we get to the second proposition, The universe began to exist, that we presume existence.

To be fair, he's got a point. If we allow that something can begin to exist we must be presuming that existence itself exists. I had to think about it myself before I realized he was probably right.

Sadly, it's a point that doesn't actually help him any...

[Adrift]

To be fair, he's got a point. If we allow that something can begin to exist we must be presuming that existence itself exists. I had to think about it myself before I realized he was probably right.

Sadly, it's a point that doesn't actually help him any...

I just think of it as a factual statement about the concept of "existence". We can make factual statements about the concept of "nothing" too (like that it is a term of universal negation, and means "not anything", and that there are no possible word in which "nothing" exists, etc.), but by making factual statements about "nothing", we're not presuming "nothing" exists.

I don't know. Maybe we're all saying the same thing.

[37818]

1) You denying that you committed a fallacy then telling me I committed one - without mentioning which one - sounds like a kid in a school yard and proves nothing. Point stands.

Oh. You can make a false accusation without proof? What did I claim was a self evident truth that needed to be proved? I did not.

3) It looks like a bad rehash of the beginning of the Kalam argument.

No. I started with the premise of an uncaused existence. So in that regard, I indeed presume existence. (Again, not to be confused with caused existence, space-time and matter.)

Point one is presumably a foundational assumption - gonna be a big problem if someone rejects it.

Why? Only to presume something comes from nothingness.

Point two needs to be established (why doesn't it need a god? Merely being uncaused doesn't preclude it worshiping a god. You presumably mean 'to exist' but being uncaused doesn't preclude that, either - it could be uncaused and still have another 'god' existence to worship. This is why the wording is so sloppy - it leaves all sorts of possibilities wide open.).

So unless you are willing to argue God needs a God. Then why would an uncause existence need a God?

Argument: restating the second point is NOT an argument. As previously noted, there are other open possibilities so neither conclusion is necessarily true.

So does that mean not one or the other? Are you saying this, uncaused existence which does not needing a God creates a false dilemma, in which either the uncaused existence indicates that there is no God or that it is God? What other possibilities do you see? Can you give an uncaused existence which needs God? Or why would you suppose something uncaused needs a God?

Also, there's nothing at all in your argument that would lead us to the conclusion that the 'uncaused existence', if God, must necessarily be the Judeo-Christian God (YHWH). Identifying such an entity is another argument altogether.

I'd call it 'mud'.

I do not care. Mud it is. What does God's name mean to you? To me it means He is the self existent one [uncaused existence]. To me that is the meaning of His name. The only reason I included it was for fellow believers. The skeptic need not believe it. The skeptic only needs to understand that is what I believe.

Here's the formal version of the argument you're using for your basis. Study it. Kalam Cosmological Argument.

I reject it. It presumes what it sets out to prove. It presumes an existence too. And it denies an infinite regress. The concept of there being no first cause in an infinite series of causes and effects.