Atheism

[HeiGou]

I'm with Steve on the 2 + 2 = 4 question. It's not a fact, but simply something we agree about because we use a particular mathematical system. The axioms of that system are unproven assumptions. The idea that no mathematical system can ever be complete in this sense is down to this guy: Kurt Godel.

Umm, Godel says that an axiomatic system cannot be shown to be complete. Wouldn't that imply that the system has to be sufficiently complex to involve axioms? 2+2=4 does not contain any axioms. Rather the arithmetic operations are basically underlying the entire system. They are too basic for inclusion. I was taught Godel's theorem using the example of a geometry system where in fact parallel lines do meet at infinity. I don't recall having to assume 1+1=2 but then I was not a very good student.

Even if I fail at the first hurdle, I would go on to claim that whatever axioms cannot be proven, 2+2=4 does not rest on any axioms. It is a simple and observable fact that 2+2=4 and they do so in any consistent axiomatic system. Let me stress that word consistent. Assume a mathematical system where 2+2=5 and think about the consequences.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings HeiGou,

2+2=4 does not rest on any axioms.

2 + 2 = 4 can only be proved by reference to the axioms, and it relies on certain definitions that form part of the system of mainstream mathematics. See here.

It is a simple and observable fact that 2+2=4 and they do so in any consistent axiomatic system.

Hmm... what is '2'? Can you go out and find me a '2' that I can observe?

Peace

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Umm, Godel says that an axiomatic system cannot be shown to be complete. Wouldn't that imply that the system has to be sufficiently complex to involve axioms? 2+2=4 does not contain any axioms. Even if I fail at the first hurdle, I would go on to claim that whatever axioms cannot be proven, 2+2=4 does not rest on any axioms.

The rules of addition can by themselfs be considered an axiom. How can you proof that 1+1 = 2 ? There is no proof for it, it is one of the axioms we base our math upon. We simply assume it in the theory of math.

Rather the arithmetic operations are basically underlying the entire system. They are too basic for inclusion.

Well axioms are the basis for math, and therefor are indeed underlying the entire system. But that doesn't make them any less of an assumption. Math is nothing more then an artificial system based on those assumptions.

It is a simple and observable fact that 2+2=4 and they do so in any consistent axiomatic system.

Like in the banana's example when you put two banana's next to each other we say we now have two banan's. But the banana's (1's) didn't fuse into a new entity (2). Instead when we move the banana's we just have two bannana's next to eachother (1+1).

Let me stress that word consistent. Assume a mathematical system where 2+2=5 and think about the consequences.

First of all the absense of a mathemetical system with difrent axioms doesn't make the existing axioms any less of an axiom. Furthermore 1+1=2 works only in all decimal math systems. In a binary math system 2 doesn't even exist. Here the sum of two 1's will rather be: 01+01=10

Here's more on the axiom of numeral systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_system
I find the folowing to be a very interesting comment:
The base-10 system (decimal) is the one most commonly used today. It is assumed to have originated because humans have ten fingers.

 

[root]

No not at all. I think all the dimensions were created simultaniously. You got my argument wrong, it's your p.o.v. that suggests this. you say all interaction is dependant of time. Therefor time needs to exist prior to the beginning of the universe.

actually no, on my basis if the motion of matter itself creates the concept of time then on current school of thought matter did not exist prior to our universe so time could not have existed. I am starting to lose my way in this debate because to be honest I have lost our respevtive positions. My original POV was that time as a single entity (dimension) does not exist, and that current school of thought to which tries to explain time is still very open to much interpretation and debate. Though I did concede right at the beginning that I accept spce-time.

Quote:Root
Or that time simply does not exist within "Nothing" going back to the roots of this issue raised by Sabi......

Steve - what are you talking about? "within nothing" that's a contradiction in terms. If there is nothing, then there's no "within" either.

Me and Sabi were discussing "nothing" which could also be termed as "massless space" to which the universe is currently expanding into. Time & matter does not exist "outside" our universe so we agreed to state "nothing" as being what our universe is expanding into........ Hence why I said time does not exist within "nothing", hope that clears it up.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

actually no, on my basis if the motion of matter itself creates the concept of time then on current school of thought matter did not exist prior to our universe so time could not have existed.

Ok, I c your point now. So that means you (and whatever school you are refering to) believes in presentism? That the past no longer exists, and the future doesn't exist yet?

I am starting to lose my way in this debate because to be honest I have lost our respevtive positions. My original POV was that time as a single entity (dimension) does not exist, and that current school of thought to which tries to explain time is still very open to much interpretation and debate. Though I did concede right at the beginning that I accept spce-time.

No problem, that is understandable in such philosophical discusions where there's a lack of conclusive terminology. You've already reproduced your starting point, mine was the following:
Believing in space-time, and saying that our interpretation of time is a result of motions are two contradicting stands, since the first claims eternalism, and the second claims presentism.

Me and Sabi were discussing "nothing" which could also be termed as "massless space" to which the universe is currently expanding into. Time & matter does not exist "outside" our universe so we agreed to state "nothing" as being what our universe is expanding into........ Hence why I said time does not exist within "nothing", hope that clears it up.

Yes well that p.o.v. is based on the assumption that there is something like "empty space" there. that there is a sort of "container" wherin something can "not exist".

 

[root]

Quote:Root
Me and Sabi were discussing "nothing" which could also be termed as "massless space" to which the universe is currently expanding into. Time & matter does not exist "outside" our universe so we agreed to state "nothing" as being what our universe is expanding into........ Hence why I said time does not exist within "nothing", hope that clears it up

.

Steve - Yes well that p.o.v. is based on the assumption that there is something like "empty space" there. that there is a sort of "container" wherin something can "not exist".

I don't need to assume anything, I don't assume anything exists for space to expand into, thus why would it require a container for something not to exist.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

You assume the existance of a "nothing", a "masless space" as you call it. I'm not saying your "nothing needs a contanier to be in, I'm saying your defenition of nothing comes close to such a "container".

 

[IceQueen~]

the prophet (P) said that you know a camel has passed when you see it's dung. you know when a person has passed when you see their footprints.

the universe and everything in creation is the proof of an Ultimate Creator.

 

[root]

I'm saying your defenition of nothing comes close to such a "container".

Please expand what you mean by a "container" since that in my mind implies that a barrier force will be in existence. If something does not exist, how can it have a container implying a restrictive limit. Not sure I understand u Steve.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Please expand what you mean by a "container" since that in my mind implies that a barrier force will be in existence. If something does not exist, how can it have a container implying a restrictive limit. Not sure I understand u Steve.

A container is an empty room. It is something that "could" contain something but doesn't necesairly do so. I get the impresion from your previous posts that you believe there is actually such an emptyness beyond the boundries of the universe, while I see no reason to asume there is even that beyond it.

this of course begs the question, if there isn't even a "masless space" beyond these bounderies, what does our universe expand into? Well some scientists assume that the outer riples of big bang make up an "empty space" for the universe to be "contained" as they go along.

 

[root]

A container is an empty room. It is something that "could" contain something but doesn't necesairly do so.

No you misunderstand my POV.

I get the impresion from your previous posts that you believe there is actually such an emptyness beyond the boundries of the universe,

Emtyness is a way I would not describe it either

while I see no reason to asume there is even that beyond it.

I agree with this in my POV is that you cannot see nothing.

this of course begs the question, if there isn't even a "masless space" beyond these bounderies, what does our universe expand into?

This is my entire point here, your nearing the "nothing" that is essence I don't describe for it is beyond that, afterall it is nothing. It's not as if you could go place a suitcase in it since it does not exist....... our universe expands and it expands into "nothing", it's not a container it is not anything.

Well some scientists assume that the outer riples of big bang make up an "empty space" for the universe to be "contained" as they go along.

They do, and some even consider we are actually in a super massive dark star. Thus contained. As for the truth, take your pick eh.

 

[yoke]

the prophet (P) said that you know a camel has passed when you see it's dung. you know when a person has passed when you see their footprints.

the universe and everything in creation is the proof of an Ultimate Creator.

If what you say is true then that would mean an ultimate creator is proof of another ultimate creator who created the ultimate creator and it would keep going on.

An ultimate creator does not explain anything for you have to ask the question where did the ultimate creator come from.

Instead ask where did the footprints come from and evolution explains and has evidence of how life evolved. Not like religion which demands faith and that is non thinking.

 

[Joe98]

the universe and everything in creation is the proof of an Ultimate Creator.

No it doesn't. It means you don't understand how it came about.

Then you use superstition to try explain how it came about.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Ok It seems I've reached the wrong conclusion about your thoughts on "massless space" Root, and I do not find teh post that triggered this, this thread has been going on for quite a while. I guess that leaves us with just a single difrence in opinion:
Believing in space-time on one hand, and saying that our interpretation of time is the simlpe result of motion are two contradicting stands, since the first fits in an eternalistic view (where both future and past exist simultaniously next to one another in the dimension of time), and the second fits in an presentistic view (where there is only teh present, the past has chenged into present and the future is yet to be made by changing the present some more.)

 

[root]

STEVE - Ok It seems I've reached the wrong conclusion about your thoughts on "massless space" Root, and I do not find teh post that triggered this, this thread has been going on for quite a while. I guess that leaves us with just a single difrence in opinion: Believing in space-time on one hand, and saying that our interpretation of time is the simlpe result of motion are two contradicting stands, since the first fits in an eternalistic view (where both future and past exist simultaniously next to one another in the dimension of time),

Time

"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn’t happen at once."
— Albert Einstein

We can logically accept the virtual nature of time because we have no direct sensory mechanism to sense or perceive time. Despite this glaring absence, we do have a strong sense of time that plays a crucial role in every conscious decision we make in our lives. We can argue that the reason for the existence of time is our knowledge of our finite life-span. We can illustrate this argument by mapping the history of the universe to 45 years. This mapping also shows how our physics of the universe is an ambitious extrapolation from a very short span of knowledge to incredibly long time scales. Also, physics has multiple notions of time - Newton's constant time and Einstein's malleable time. The difference between these notions of time is indicative of its unreal nature. Time is unreal the same way as mathematics is unreal; they are both products of our intellect. And philosophically, they can be thought of as formal languages.

STEVE - and the second fits in an presentistic view (where there is only teh present, the past has chenged into present and the future is yet to be made by changing the present some more.)

"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live."
— Albert Einstein

According to cognitive neuroscience, our perceptual experience of reality is only a distant and convenient mapping of the physical processes causing the sensory inputs. Sound is a mapping of auditory inputs, and space is a representation of visual inputs. Space and time are "unreal" from this point of view. Though we may not like to accept it, the foundations to our knowledge are philosophical. These foundations are assumptions in most cases. Some of the assumptions, especially the ones in physics, are not difficult to spot. Others that pertain to the nature of reality itself are far trickier to appreciate. The elusive assumptions include the existence of time and space, for instance. The realness of reality is not merely a philosophical issue; it is a subject matter of cognitive neuroscience as well. Once the issue of reality gets back to the realm of science, it becomes something that physics has to describe. Physics, in turn, is erected on the philosophical assumptions on the existence of time and space.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings root,

Though we may not like to accept it, the foundations to our knowledge are philosophical.

Wahey! I think that's the first (almost) positive thing I've ever heard you say about philosophy!

Peace

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Time

"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn’t happen at once."
— Albert Einstein

That quotation could work as an argument for both view points. It might have a verry witty undertone, but doesn't reveal that much about the actual shape, form of time.

We can logically accept the virtual nature of time because we have no direct sensory mechanism to sense or perceive time. Despite this glaring absence, we do have a strong sense of time that plays a crucial role in every conscious decision we make in our lives. We can argue that the reason for the existence of time is our knowledge of our finite life-span. We can illustrate this argument by mapping the history of the universe to 45 years. This mapping also shows how our physics of the universe is an ambitious extrapolation from a very short span of knowledge to incredibly long time scales. Also, physics has multiple notions of time - Newton's constant time and Einstein's malleable time. The difference between these notions of time is indicative of its unreal nature. Time is unreal the same way as mathematics is unreal; they are both products of our intellect. And philosophically, they can be thought of as formal languages.

Well I doubt Newtonian views on this are really relevant since Newton didn't really investigate "time" hat much.

"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live."
— Albert Einstein

Same as before, It is a very vague comment. If you ask me what he meant here was to indicate how our views often get rusted in a simplistic representation of the real thing. But then again, who am I to interpret another man's words.

According to cognitive neuroscience, our perceptual experience of reality is only a distant and convenient mapping of the physical processes causing the sensory inputs. Sound is a mapping of auditory inputs, and space is a representation of visual inputs. Space and time are "unreal" from this point of view.

The problem with this is that neuropsychologist don't necesairy have a good insight in the physics of time. they base that defenition on the assumption that time is the speed by which events occur. From that biased pov, it's only natural to conclude that our notion of time is the mapping of those speeds.

Though we may not like to accept it, the foundations to our knowledge are philosophical. These foundations are assumptions in most cases. Some of the assumptions, especially the ones in physics, are not difficult to spot. Others that pertain to the nature of reality itself are far trickier to appreciate. The elusive assumptions include the existence of time and space, for instance. The realness of reality is not merely a philosophical issue; it is a subject matter of cognitive neuroscience as well. Once the issue of reality gets back to the realm of science, it becomes something that physics has to describe. Physics, in turn, is erected on the philosophical assumptions on the existence of time and space.

Quite right, and the deeper you get into a certain matter, the harder it becomes to seperate the field of science from philosophy. eventally philosophy can becoem so overwhelming you can deny everthing. But then we reach a point were we need to ask ourselfs. How constructive are we? What base do we take? You cannot have mathematics without using axioms. You cannot think without assumptions. So do we stop thinking to avoid those assumptions? No we simply try and make the best out of it. It will get mesy at some point, but that doesn't mean we should give up. that doesn't mean we can accumelate knowledge through this proces of mixing philosophy with science.

 

[Zohair]

Science tells us that the universe was created by a big bang.

Allah (god) is the one who caused the big bang. as it even says in the quran.

"Don't you see that the heavens and the earth was once joined together and we clove them ascunder"

I don't, and never will, understand how someone can think that this universe does not have a creator.

Hey, you know what happened to me today? I was standing by the lake and wanted to get across to the other side. Suddenly, a tree cut itself, then it tied itself into a raft, it then proceeded into the lake right by the shore. Then a paddel just randomly appeared. I used this to get across the river.

You think I'm Crazy cause I proclaim that a measly raft was created by itslef?, you are the one who thinks this whole universe, and the galaxies, and solar systems and planets and stars inside of it was created from nothing.

who's crazier?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Zohair,

Science tells us that the universe was created by a big bang.

Science is never that dogmatic and simplistic. Here's a better way of putting it: Science suggests that the Big Bang theory is the best current explanation for the early development of the universe.

Allah (god) is the one who caused the big bang. as it even says in the quran.

"Don't you see that the heavens and the earth was once joined together and we clove them ascunder"

Do you really believe that this is referring to the Big Bang? It's so vague it could refer to any number of theories.

I don't, and never will, understand how someone can think that this universe does not have a creator.

I don't absolutely exclude the possibility. Atheism is my belief; I don't say that I know it's true - unlike religious people who have certainty about these unknowns. You may claim to know how the universe began, but in fact you don't - nobody does. We just have different beliefs about it. I happen to believe that it's more likely that there is no conscious creator. I can't prove this, but I can give many reasons why I think like this - as you'll see if you search back throught this thread a little.

Hey, you know what happened to me today? I was standing by the lake and wanted to get across to the other side. Suddenly, a tree cut itself, then it tied itself into a raft, it then proceeded into the lake right by the shore. Then a paddel just randomly appeared. I used this to get across the river.

You think I'm Crazy cause I proclaim that a measly raft was created by itslef?, you are the one who thinks this whole universe, and the galaxies, and solar systems and planets and stars inside of it was created from nothing.

who's crazier?

This is an old argument, and if you genuinely did believe the raft story, then you would be crazier. Remember that the universe has had billions of years to organise itself into the arragement that we (partly) observe today, unlike your raft, which was apparently completed in less than a day. Also, nobody knows what existed before the universe. It may have been nothing, it may have been something else.

Peace

 

[Allah-creation]

Wow this thread is long! i just voted for this (The existence of God is an undeniable FACT).