Arguing God is like arguing Santa

Post Reply New Topic

That's why I I said, "assume something exists".

When you assume something exists, then you believe it's real; it exists; it's in reality.

"Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith


There are lots of articles on the internet about whether infinity exists or not, and you say, "Infinity has never been really challenged on its existence"?

In the 'Scientific America' article cited earlier, the math professor makes the argument for using "potential infinity" in math, because he argues, 'actual infinity' doesn't exist".

___________________________________________________________

Anyone who believes in 'actual infinity' has faith in it, because there is no proof that it exists.

That statement is in accordance with the definition of 'faith' I cited earlier. If you don't agree then please state your reasoning.

So you're saying that there is a finite number of numbers?

Numbers are abstract concepts that don't exist in reality.

In reality, all known measurements are finite, nothing is known to be infinite.

As I cited, the math professor argues that math proofs should not contain the assumption of "actual infinity", since he does not see evidence of its existence. He argues for the use of "potential infinity" in math proofs.

Still, some math/science people are believers in actual infinity.

Some physicists believe the universe is like a tape that endlessly plays over and over. Some believe in the "multiverse" of an infinite number of universes.

My point is that they have faith that actual infinity can exist.

So infinity is no more "real" than any other abstraction, then. Like...math with zeros. Or numbers themselves. Yet, I don't see a nascent movement toward getting rid of them. I wonder why that is?

Such a strange thing to say.

Here is a quote from Stanford University Math department.

"... it is universally acknowledged that numbers and the other objects of pure mathematics are abstract (if they exist), whereas rocks and trees and human beings are concrete".
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/

Some people don't believe numbers exist in the abstract either.

It might exist.

There are different intellectual camps.

You got your dichotomies confused.

The opposite of real is "unreal".

The opposite of "abstract" is "concrete", or "tangible". Not "real".


Matter is tangible (you can touch it).

Ideas are not tangible. But obviously humans have thoughts. So thoughts really exist. So despite being abstract a thought is still "real".

Numbers are abstract concepts that don't exist in reality.


quote]

Tell that to your landlord: that the back rent you owe isn't real "because numbers aren't real"!

But I already said above that scientists don't even claim that any tangible material stuff is "infinite". That went out with the Steady State Theory.

Only when it comes to form.

Don't any of you berks value your gift?

Reason detached from social/political considerations should be enough.

But then again it seems that most 'Spergics are busting to seem more ordinary than the most ordinary.

Can't anyone see the absurdity (or, at least, crass stupidity) of the thread title???

I use the words "exists in reality" and that means "concrete".

concrete: existing in a material or physical form; real or solid; not abstract.
real: actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or suppose



Yes, thoughts are real. But ...

"Big Foot" isn't real just because I think of an image of "Big Foot".

"Numbers" don't exist in reality just because I have an idea of one.

All that is real is a "thought of Big Foot" or a" thought of Numbers".

If thoughts made things real, then we would have "genie wish granting powers".

We are essentially debating the reification fallacy.

It's good to have a laugh, not to take life too seriously all the time. That's how I see this discussion. So, Ok numbers are an idea, they don't have substance, not as a noun. However, when they become an adjective things become quite different. They are attached to an object. Red is real and so is one apple. Oxygen has an atomic weight of 16 and that is an essential quality, a concrete fact, not just an idea. I want you to consider the Phi number (1.618) a basic fact of science. It can be measured, but is existing, it is observed and measured in nature's spirals by mathematicians. It is crucial to various aspects of science, including the structure of atoms.

I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the OP, except if numbers are just an idea who thought them up in the first place? Is it a complete coincidence that we can take a set of Fibonacci numbers and the pairs just happen to describe that beautiful proportion, the Golden Mean?

Not at all. Lots of adults believe in God, but very few believe in Santa. If they are similar to each other, there should be a lot more adults that believe in Santa. Parents can buy presents and put them under a tree, but how can existence just create itself? That makes no sense.

Why assume existence was created in the first place?