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

[Teallaura]

Even assuming a multiverse, when one refers to a "first cause" they're referring to the cause that started it all. I've never heard anyone refer to the multiverse as a first cause (not unless they think the multiverse is eternal).

Source: Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

In philosophy, the uncreated or self-created cause to which every series of causes must ultimately be traced. Used by ancient Greek thinkers, the concept was adopted by the Christian tradition and became the basis of one version of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. According to this argument, every observed event is the result of a series of causes that must end in a first cause, which is God. The argument was given its classic formulation by St. Thomas Aquinas. It was rejected by many later thinkers, including David Hume and Immanuel Kant.

© Copyright Original Source

I agree, actually. But Bible clearly wasn't using it that way.

I think you still end up having to move back to a First Cause even allowing his postulate - it actually undermines his argument, truth be told. But he's having enough trouble without a side argument over this.

Let the nice boy have his shovel back, dear...

[Adrift]

I agree, actually. But Bible clearly wasn't using it that way.

I think you still end up having to move back to a First Cause even allowing his postulate - it actually undermines his argument, truth be told. But he's having enough trouble without a side argument over this.

Let the nice boy have his shovel back, dear...

Yeah, I understand that he probably meant by plural first causes that the multiverse was the cause of our current universe, and that some previous multiverse was the progenitor of the multiverse that spawned our universe, etc. But that's not how "first cause" is used, or what it means. At least, not in any work on the subject I've read. A "first cause" doesn't describe just the universe we happen to talk about, but about the actual first cause. A "first cause" is always the source from which all other causes derive. So its not the multiverse (unless the multiverse is eternal). It must be whichever multiverse started the whole chain of multiverses that led to our universe to begin with. Or, better yet, God. The uncaused cause (or in BIBLE talk, the "uncaused existence").

But yeah. I'm sorta getting a bit bored with this whole thing. I doesn't really appear that we're getting much traction.

[Teallaura]

Yeah, I understand that he probably meant by plural first causes that the multiverse was the cause of our current universe, and that some previous multiverse was the progenitor of the multiverse that spawned our universe, etc. But that's not how "first cause" is used, or what it means. At least, not in any work on the subject I've read. A "first cause" doesn't describe just the universe we happen to talk about, but about the actual first cause. A "first cause" is always the source from which all other causes derive. So its not the multiverse (unless the multiverse is eternal). It must be whichever multiverse started the whole chain of multiverses that led to our universe to begin with. Or, better yet, God. The uncaused cause (or in BIBLE talk, the "uncaused existence").

But yeah. I'm sorta getting a bit bored with this whole thing. I doesn't really appear that we're getting much traction.

Yup.

I've never seen an argument where the multiverse wasn't assumed eternal. Honestly, I think 'multiverse' is itself a misnomer.

[Soyeong]

They didn't 'get' that way - they were always that way. Here's the funky part - in such a universe, the series is necessarily not causal. They just fall in an infinite series of falls but one does not cause the other and removing a domino won't stop the chain.

This would be the part where physics leaves the building disgusted, yes I know.

Even if the series has always been falling, if you look at what is causing it to exist at every moment in which it exists, then it is still part of the same sort of causal series that requires a primary cause.

[Adrift]

Yup.

I've never seen an argument where the multiverse wasn't assumed eternal. Honestly, I think 'multiverse' is itself a misnomer.

Often when the topic of a multiverse comes up, when pushed for the cause of the multiverse, a lot of skeptics just won't reply, or answer honestly "I don't know", which kinda defeats the whole reason for bringing up a multiverse as an alternative for the uncaused cause in the first place.

[Teallaura]

Often when the topic of a multiverse comes up, when pushed for the cause of the multiverse, a lot of skeptics just won't reply, or answer honestly "I don't know", which kinda defeats the whole reason for bringing up a multiverse as an alternative for the uncaused cause in the first place.

[Teallaura]

Even if the series has always been falling, if you look at what is causing it to exist at every moment in which it exists, then it is still part of the same sort of causal series that requires a primary cause.

Um, that means all things are ultimately caused - which was the opposite of the hypothetical.

[Sparko]

um if they were always falling, and falling takes a finite time to happen and they have been knocking each other over for eternity past, then they would have already fallen by now and none would still be falling.

[Teallaura]

um if they were always falling, and falling takes a finite time to happen and they have been knocking each other over for eternity past, then they would have already fallen by now and none would still be falling.

If they are always falling they never hit the ground.

[Sparko]

If they are always falling they never hit the ground.

We are not talking falling down all at the same time towards the ground, but each domino being knocked over by the previous one, an infinite series of cause and effect.

but even with your way of thinking, it doesn't take forever to fall and hit the ground so they would all have hit the ground an infinite time ago.

[Teallaura]

We are not talking falling down all at the same time towards the ground, but each domino being knocked over by the previous one, an infinite series of cause and effect.

but even with your way of thinking, it doesn't take forever to fall and hit the ground so they would all have hit the ground an infinite time ago.

Alternate universe - physical laws need not apply.

It's a hypothetical. Stop taking it so seriously!

[37818]

There are numerous objections I have not replied to.
From Post #205

An infinite series of dominos, no first domino, no last domino. An infinite set of dominos have fallen, dominos continue to fall. There are yet an infinite set of dominos to fall. There is no first fallen domino.

It sets the dominos falling. Not all of them to have already fallen. Infinite past, with no first domino to have fallen. And infinite future of dominos to forever continue to fall. "There are yet an infinite set of dominos to fall." An illustration of the multiverse concept, using dominos. An over simplified example, yes. But I think it communicates the view.

Based on objections, I do not think I can make it much simpler. And add to this, I was not the one suggesting dominos to begin with.


Also existence is not the same thing as a cause. Uncaused and caused are also opposites. Every one of the classical arguments, argue for the existence of God. As I have explained before, an uncaused existence does not need a God. Everyone of those arguments all presume existence to make each of the respective arguments.

Now the abstract truth that two plus two equals four. Anyone who answers that truth needs God, explain why?

[JimL]

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, unlike what we define as sin, math is a brute fact. Unless you believe that the Lord God could change his mind and make 2+2 =7. Interesting question though in that God, if you believe in God, can be totally subjective when it comes to sin, but not when it comes to math. Btw, what is a mere deity?

[37818]

No, unlike what we define as sin, math is a brute fact. Unless you believe that the Lord God could change his mind and make 2+2 =7. Interesting question though in that God, if you believe in God, can be totally subjective when it comes to sin, but not when it comes to math. Btw, what is a mere deity?

only be believed if it is true.

[shunyadragon]

only be believed if it is true.

Truth is immutable as Natural Law is immutable. Truth does not change. Objective reality is because of truth. A thing is not true on account of being believed. Rather a thing should only be believed if it is true.

This assertion is as true as your assertion.