Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    In base 2, that is true. By the way, I would say that numbers, dreams, and visions are part of the empirical world, by a strict definition.
    Interesting, but I assume to reject the notion that abstract objects exist? Numbers don't actually exist, JK Rowlings novels don't actually exist as an abstract object but are simply markings on a paper?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumzaAsad97)
    Would you say secular society in Britain is Christianity devoid of theology?
    Unlikely. Although there will probably be remnants of Christianity like Christmas and Easter holidays. But a completely secular society will probably move away from christian ideals even without its theology.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Onde)
    For example, the average life expectancy worldwide in 1900 was 31 years of age, now it is probably more than 71 years. Around 1900, the percentage of the world's population living in absolute poverty was more than 80%. In 2015, this was reduced to 9.6%, ans is expected to be eradicated altogether by 2030.

    The distinction between science and religion is that religion looks for supernatural explanations for how the world came about, whereas science "only" utilizes observation of natural phenomenon in order to understand everything. Strictly speaking, if something can be observed, it is a natural phenomenon.
    Although I agree with you that the achievements you mentioned in your first paragraph are ones to be applauded. Your making an assumption that increasing life expectancy and reducing poverty are the desired results. The second is definitely a moral assumption. The morality of a Godless society has no intrinsic value. So by what standards is reducing poverty a good thing or achieving results?

    Do you believe that natural phenomena has precidence over supernatural explanations? Both, in my opinion, are still rooted in faith.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    Of course abstract concepts exist.
    I'm pleasantly surprised. Perhaps it's scientism but abstract concepts seem to be unpopular with atheists, or that's the view I get at least.

    Do you think numbers are necessary beings then?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    It is your contention that I find it wrong. Does something have to exist if it is necessary?
    What does this mean? I'm not a philosopher and don't quite understand.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    It is your contention that I find it wrong. Does something have to exist if it is necessary?
    Oh, you do agree with s5?

    If something is a necessary being then it could not fail to exist. It therefore stands in comparison with contingent things.

    Many philosophers of maths argue that numbers are necessary being - that there could not be a possible world where the number 2 does not exist. Or law of contradiction is another example.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)

    Do you think numbers are necessary beings then?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't understand this.

    Numbers, as in values, are real if anything is real. They are the framework of our universe.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    If I want something to exist, or consider it necessary, it doesn't actually mean it exists.
    Sounds right.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I kind of get the impression that it is seen as a good thing when a religious person speaks well about their religion and their culture surrounding it, but then when an atheist says anything good about their absence of religion it's dismissed as being too aggressive and too belligerent. anyone else feel like this?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    I'm pleasantly surprised. Perhaps it's scientism but abstract concepts seem to be unpopular with atheists, or that's the view I get at least.

    Do you think numbers are necessary beings then?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Abstract concepts are very popular with atheists who are scientists trying to understand the world around them.
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    No. But much of our law and culture comes from Christianity if that's what you mean.
    I feel that most moral laws have been taken from Christianity. The morality which a secular society governs itself is purely subjective, so most morals which individuals hold in the west are due to Christian Europe.

    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Unlikely. Although there will probably be remnants of Christianity like Christmas and Easter holidays. But a completely secular society will probably move away from christian ideals even without its theology.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I would agree. I feel that over time the objective moral lace which Christianity provided will slowly be undone. I think there are quite a few examples of that in our current society.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    I kind of get the impression that it is seen as a good thing when a religious person speaks well about their religion and their culture surrounding it, but then when an atheist says anything good about their absence of religion it's dismissed as being too aggressive and too belligerent. anyone else feel like this?
    Well said.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thecla)
    Am sure that the will be the Judgement Day then.
    There's no evidence for any god let alone Judgement Day so I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

    (Original post by TheALevelStudent)
    😂😂😂
    Where did everything come from then? How was the world created?
    Gravity compacted rocks and dust until it formed a ball (planet) which then gradually evolved an atmosphere.

    (Original post by TheALevelStudent)
    Is it though? The creation needs a creator, so the only logical explanation is for some superficial power to have created the universe
    All of so-called creation can be explained using natural laws and evolution, there's no need for a creator nor evidence for one.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    I don't understand this.

    Numbers, as in values, are real if anything is real. They are the framework of our universe.
    Well I'm not an expert on abstract objects etc. But there is a difference between the existence of abstract objects and a neccessary being.

    Now you say numbers are actually real, alluding to the fact that the universe seems to be written in the language of maths. With that we are in agreement and I think makes the case for the existence of abstract objects.

    Necessary beings deal with the contingency of beings. A contingent being is something that could be different or could fail to exist. In contrast, a neccessary being is a being which could not fail to exist or being different. So in every possible world the number 2 exists, and it couldn't be different.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheALevelStudent)
    I am no doubt denying the theory of the Big Bang, I fully beleive it as scientifically it seems correct. I'm a man of logic, and I think logically, so logically something must have cause the Big Bang, what actually was the Big Bang? It was a sound, from that one sound, all was created.
    The Big Bang was an expansion and the initial event was actually silent because sound waves have to propagate through space to be heard.

    Calling God the creator is extremely simplified, God is no physical thing. God is the force, and by einsteins theory, force can not be created or destroyed, only transferred. So God s force is in the creations, and when we die, the force will return back to God.
    The problem with this is that you are just making arbitrary assertions backed up by no evidence. How do you know God is no physical thing? How do you know he is a force? How do you know his force is in creations? How do you know this force will return to God once we die?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    I consider numbers an abstract concept, and are not at all beings.

    I consider god an abstract concept that people argue about, but I do not believe god exists in reality, anymore than many of the fantastical things that people dream of actually exist, or Sirius Black.
    Ahh, you don't think numbers actually exist. You reject that ontological status. I then assume that you think numbers and mathematics is nothing more than something created by humans rather than discovered?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumzaAsad97)
    I would say it is. Empiricism is built upon too many axioms - such as this world is real and we aren't being controlled by aliens etc...surely the reliance that our sense organs will lead us to the truth is based purely on faith?
    And that's where Occam's Razor comes in, we deal with the theory that presents the least number of unsupported assumptions. We wouldn't get anywhere with this mindset because there are an infinite number of possible scenarios concerning us not really being real and apparently we cannot prove or disprove any of them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    Well said.
    this is probably why atheism, or the arguments against religions, aren't taught in schools alongside christianity, islam, hinduism, etc, as if they dont deserve the acknowledgement even though many people in our society are against religions
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    Abstract concepts are very popular with atheists who are scientists trying to understand the world around them.
    However, maybe it's just my experience, but many don't see said abstract concepts as actually things that exist.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    I take issue with what you consider possibly necessary, and what you consider a necessary being.

    God is not only not necessary for the universe, as a being that is defined as supernatural, I am sure God does not exist, even unnecessarily.
    Yes, but what is your issue? Do you think that the idea of a necessary being is Incoherent or that there should be a different definition of a neccessary being?

    Similarly, why do you take issue with the largely uncontroversial idea of something that is possibly necessary? Maybe it's common use within philosophy of religion has put you off and so your decide to reject the whole notion, but it is quote a core concept within modal logic with is theologically neutral.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 15, 2016
The home of Results and Clearing

1,976

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.