Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    However, maybe it's just my experience, but many don't see said abstract concepts as actually things that exist.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They don't always, or should I say they don't often exist. For example I can conceive of a 27 dimensional space. It may not exist as a real space, but I may use it to understand the real world around me in a situation where I need 27 values to describe a space or the location of a particle/particles in space. I may use a wavefunction, a mathematically abstract entity to describe a real particle in time and space; the physical particle is only described by values churned by the function, which we then have to find a way of interpreting to give us some way if visualising that particle as having a position in space.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    well...numbers are real...in the same sense that words are real. You really didn't think that atheists did not believe in words, did you?I believe that god exists as a concept, just like I believe that existence and non-existence exist as concepts. Based on your reasoning, that must mean there are universes where there are no number 2s, and no gods.

    There is a difference between numbers and gods. Numbers have utility, in that they quantify properties of nature (and beyond, which may also be useful). How would I actually observe a number, other than as an abstract representation? I have no reason to doubt that they can similarly exist in other universes that have countable things. In universes with no trees, why would it even matter?

    This is completely different with god, however. God is not defined as an abstract concept, but as a supernatural being. Again, I know for sure that god does not exist, because the supernatural does not exist. Only observable phenomena exist as far as anybody is concerned, and you cannot prove otherwise.
    Well I think you're bringing in the concept of God is taking the conversation on a tangent. I was strictly interested in your ontological view of abstract concepts like numbers and propositions.

    You touch on being able to observe a number as an abstract representation. But that is the point of abstract objects - they aren't physical and observable. When you see the number 2 written down on an piece of paper, the realist who views abstract beings as actually existing, will agree that it just represents the number 2 but it isn't actually the number 2. If ten people write the number 2 down that doesn't mean that there are now ten number 2s in existence.

    So, what you are saying is that ideas simply exist in that they are created by us. The number 2 is only as real as someone's dream. The number 2 is not objectively real, it wouldn't exist without humans. In other words, mathematics is created and not discovered.

    Could you draw out exactly where my reasoning would suggest that there are universes with no number 2 and no God?



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    There's nothing wrong with banging on about something if you have an aim in mind, for example, I talk about it often because I believe that religion offers women a very bad deal. In fact, discussing this with young people, people in education who are still forming their opinions, is critical. To prompt a young girl to question why when she gets married her husband has to be the head of her household, is a worthwhile thing.
    Some religions do, that is true while others like Christianity do not.

    To say Christianity offers women a bad deal means you have not understood the bible on such matters,
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumzaAsad97)
    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.
    VERY VERY VERY diluted Christian Europe... if Christianity = morals, why were there moral code and laws before Christianity? Also, why do people that have no connection with "Christian Europe" have morals?


    (Original post by HumzaAsad97)
    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.
    Considering the Christian right in America is more likely to support torture and war... I am not quite sure it's just down to "lack of Jesus".
    Why do Southern states in the US have higher levels of teen pregnancy and STDs, yet they are the most religious... morals?

    Sure, Christianity provided a level of orthodoxy that is now in declining, but Christianity = morals is a bit of an overstatement.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheOpinion)
    This is for those of faith who want to ask atheists on TSR anything about Atheism, why they don't believe etc. You can ask anything you want, just be polite
    POLITE debate is encouraged.

    Thanks

    How can you be 100% certain that there is no God when science does not have all the answers.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    I don't have an issue with the idea of a necessary being.

    A different definition? You mean "a necessary being" = god I suppose? Why?

    I don't have a problem with the term "possibly necessary", only your implied usage of the term for your own agenda.

    In science, you have hypothesis which are possible based on prior observations, and if you prove it false, you are restricted to remaining possible hypotheses. Observations and hypotheses are not "possibly necessary": They are what is, and what could be possible.

    A god cannot be observed, nor can a god be a hypothesis (as a supernatural being runs completely contrary to that process).
    OK. You don't have issue with a neccessary being.

    I don't know why you keep bringing God into it. Perhaps you feel suspicious of any talk of modal logic as though it's about to slip into talks about the modal ontological argument and feel a need to give a preemptive strike? I was simply asking you to clarify what you meant when you said you took issue.

    It was a fairly straight forward question. Do you agree with the s5 axiom of modal logic?

    If you want to argue against said axioms of logic - I'd be interested to see you argue against them with the use of scientific hypothesis, empiricism and falsification principles, which I understood was what you hinted at here.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    Some religions do, that is true while others like Christianity do not.

    To say Christianity offers women a bad deal means you have not understood the bible on such matters,
    I have studied the bible extensively over many years. I have read it in it's entirety. I have used several versions, and have studied the Hebrew and Greek texts.

    It subtly offers women less than they would be entitled to in an equal society. It is often interpreted in a way that leads to the unhappiness of women within their relationships and beyond.

    I am very informed on this matter.

    Thanks.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    How can you be 100% certain that there is no God when science does not have all the answers.
    How can you be 100% sure that there is a god when religion provides no answer (just assertions)...

    Furthermore, how can you be 100% sure that it is your favourite god, the god you support (and the religion you were born with contains the right god).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    They don't always, or should I say they don't often exist. For example I can conceive of a 27 dimensional space. It may not exist as a real space, but I may use it to understand the real world around me in a situation where I need 27 values to describe a space or the location of a particle/particles in space. I may use a wavefunction, a mathematically abstract entity to describe a real particle in time and space; the physical particle is only described by values churned by the function, which we then have to find a way of interpreting to give us some way if visualising that particle as having a position in space.
    I'll use this pretty useful article to demonstrate the point I'm trying to make.

    'However, your nominalism begins to run into problems pretty quickly. Never mind numbers. What about things like, say, novels? What exactly*is*the novel*The Catcher in the Rye? It’s not any of the particular instantiations of it — it’s not the copy on your bookshelf; it’s not the copy on mine. All of the print copies on the planet could be eradicated and still the novel could be able to be said to exist. Is the novel the original manuscript sitting in a safe somewhere? But that could be burned and you could still argue that the novel exists. But if the novel itself is not identified with any of its particular instantiations, then the nominalist is in a bit of a quandary. On this perspective, the copies of the novel are instantiations of the novel itself, and the novel itself is seeming to be something abstract — something non-physical.

    So the idea of something somehow existing outside space and time is suddenly not as absurd as it may have seemed. What about numbers, then? Of course there are disanalogies between numbers and novels. Novels are invented by humans, while, on most views of the subject, numbers exist whether or not humans ever happened to discover them. But, putting such differences aside for the moment, perhaps the existence of novels as abstract objects gives us some traction to say that numbers exist as abstract objects.'

    . . . . . . . .

    So do numbers exist?

    'Well, if you’re a platonist, you would answer “yes, numbers exist”. And further you would claim that they possess a sort of existence that is abstract — different from the sort of existence that stones, trees, and quarks enjoy. Of course, this means you are in the unenviable position of explaining the coherence of this sort of existence, along with the herculean task of explaining how we know about anything in this abstract, non-physical realm.

    If you’re a nominalist, you’d probably answer “no, numbers do not exist”. However, now you have the unenviable job of explaining why mathematics seems so indispensable to science, while science is perhaps our best tool for saying which things exist. The two best nominalist answers to this conundrum seem untenable.'

    A complete read of the article if you are interested:

    http://welovephilosophy.com/2012/12/...numbers-exist/

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    How can you be 100% certain that there is no God when science does not have all the answers.
    We have a lot of answers, in theory, if we were to exist as a race long enough, we could have them all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    I have studied the bible extensively over many years. I have read it in it's entirety. I have used several versions, and have studied the Hebrew and Greek texts.

    It subtly offers women less than they would be entitled to in an equal society. It is often interpreted in a way that leads to the unhappiness of women within their relationships and beyond.

    I am very informed on this matter.

    Thanks.
    You can read Hebrew and Greek?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    I have studied the bible extensively over many years. I have read it in it's entirety. I have used several versions, and have studied the Hebrew and Greek texts.

    It subtly offers women less than they would be entitled to in an equal society. It is often interpreted in a way that leads to the unhappiness of women within their relationships and beyond.

    I am very informed on this matter.

    Thanks.
    You might have studied the bible extensively but the message hasn't been understood.

    I'm sure the pride you have in being very informed on this matter makes you feel you understand it but I'm afraid unless you are seeking God, open to Him or have the Holy Spirit the bible will read as a book, on the surface, rather than understanding the depth contained in it.

    As you are so well versed in the bible then you will know that the church is called the bride of Christ. Christ being the bridegroom. God doesn't give this analogy for no reason. Christ, the bridegroom laid down his life for his wife, the church, what greater love is this? This is an example to those married. The husband, loves and cares for his wife as Christ watches over the church. The husband and wife are equal in that Eve was taken from Adam side, side by side, but each has a separate responsibility according to their ability. Men, generally physically stronger, women able to give birth. But both are as able as each other in terms of business, leadership, choosing which house to buy, which car to get etc etc.

    It is totally wrong to give the impression that women are undervalued in the Christian faith.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    How can you be 100% sure that there is a god when religion provides no answer (just assertions)...

    Furthermore, how can you be 100% sure that it is your favourite god, the god you support (and the religion you were born with contains the right god).

    I asked a question,
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    We have a lot of answers, in theory, if we were to exist as a race long enough, we could have them all.
    So you base everything on unproven stuff.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    I'll use this pretty useful article to demonstrate the point I'm trying to make.

    'However, your nominalism begins to run into problems pretty quickly. Never mind numbers. What about things like, say, novels? What exactly*is*the novel*The Catcher in the Rye? It’s not any of the particular instantiations of it — it’s not the copy on your bookshelf; it’s not the copy on mine. All of the print copies on the planet could be eradicated and still the novel could be able to be said to exist. Is the novel the original manuscript sitting in a safe somewhere? But that could be burned and you could still argue that the novel exists. But if the novel itself is not identified with any of its particular instantiations, then the nominalist is in a bit of a quandary. On this perspective, the copies of the novel are instantiations of the novel itself, and the novel itself is seeming to be something abstract — something non-physical.

    So the idea of something somehow existing outside space and time is suddenly not as absurd as it may have seemed. What about numbers, then? Of course there are disanalogies between numbers and novels. Novels are invented by humans, while, on most views of the subject, numbers exist whether or not humans ever happened to discover them. But, putting such differences aside for the moment, perhaps the existence of novels as abstract objects gives us some traction to say that numbers exist as abstract objects.'

    . . . . . . . .

    So do numbers exist?

    'Well, if you’re a platonist, you would answer “yes, numbers exist”. And further you would claim that they possess a sort of existence that is abstract — different from the sort of existence that stones, trees, and quarks enjoy. Of course, this means you are in the unenviable position of explaining the coherence of this sort of existence, along with the herculean task of explaining how we know about anything in this abstract, non-physical realm.

    If you’re a nominalist, you’d probably answer “no, numbers do not exist”. However, now you have the unenviable job of explaining why mathematics seems so indispensable to science, while science is perhaps our best tool for saying which things exist. The two best nominalist answers to this conundrum seem untenable.'

    A complete read of the article if you are interested:

    http://welovephilosophy.com/2012/12/...numbers-exist/

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Numbers are real things. Novels can be reduced to numbers. Sorry if that's a crap and unexciting response, I'm not a philosopher and struggled with that!
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Racoon)
    How can you be 100% certain that there is no God when science does not have all the answers.
    That is a misunderstanding of atheism.
    It is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods because of its unlikelihood. No (informed) atheist would ever claim to be 100% certain that a deity doesn't exist rather that is something (claiming that their God exists 100%) that theists do.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    That is a misunderstanding of atheism.
    It is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods because of its unlikelihood. No (informed) atheist would ever claim to be 100% certain that a deity doesn't exist rather that is something that theists do.

    Isn't that an agnostic then?
    Offline

    17
    Surprised Plantagenet Crown isn't ITT yet :holmes:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    Isn't that an agnostic then?
    An agnostic atheist.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    So you base everything on unproven stuff.
    Come on. Please don't try and effectively put a comma where I didn't type it.

    I'll break it down if your struggling with my sentence structure;

    We could know everything. If we could exist for long enough as a race experimenting and exploring. Likelihood is that we will become extinct before we understand absolutely everything.


    Also, shows that you do not know the meaning of the word theory or how it is used in science - separate note there.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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