Gold Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 In an answer to my "Where is proof that God exists?", a superstitious person said: "True statements can exist without proof. You don't prove that a straight line always is 180°/1pi it just is. Mathematicians didn't prove that a line is always 180° they defined it as such. It's a mathematical statement, albeit but the none the less a statement that no mathematical principle will logically prove because it is axiomatic. But it is still considered "true". How would you as an atheist answer that argument? Thank you.
Jot Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 True statements can exist without proof. I do not have to prove that god doesn't exist, he just does not. Wow, I should ask for some tips on how to debate from these guys...saves you a lot of time.
ofd Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 Axioms aren't considered true but self evident. Furthermore, there are several axiomatic systems leading to different forms of logic and geometrical systems.
Gold Posted March 31, 2017 Author Posted March 31, 2017 True statements can exist without proof. I do not have to prove that god doesn't exist, he just does not. Wow, I should ask for some tips on how to debate from these guys...saves you a lot of time. AHAHA awesome. Now i can kick their ass with their own logic and universality! thank you Ferssitar! Axioms aren't considered true but self evident. Furthermore, there are several axiomatic systems leading to different forms of logic and geometrical systems. Beautiful , thank you for this educational input, Ofd!
NotDarkYet Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 Ooooh my turn! Flat Earth is axiomatic. Communism is axiomatic.
A4E Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 Can I play too? "You have arms to work, and legs to move around, so it is axiomatic that you are here to be my slave. We don't need to find any proof, it just is that way. Now mop the floor!" Did I do it right? 1
thebeardslastcall Posted March 31, 2017 Posted March 31, 2017 If God is axiomatic to them, to mean self-evident, then they aren't just claiming there is a God, they are claiming to be God. How do I counter that as an atheist? (Avengers spoiler)
Gold Posted April 1, 2017 Author Posted April 1, 2017 Yeah, the person who started the debate is to become a medical doctor in 2 years. But he told me he is also a partly native "shaman", and then also "believe in" Buddhist duality non-duality....
Gold Posted April 1, 2017 Author Posted April 1, 2017 If anybody here well versed in math, logic, geometry could add to what Ofd said above...that axioms are not just random concepts accidental humans arbitrarily decided to use as true, out of blue. There is more to axiomatic concepts and logic than mere empty statement. If somebody knowledgeable in math could elaborate on that?To show how axioms are there for a reason, or that axioms have to meet certain criteria to qualify to be an axiom. Would be great in our quest to lessen BS superstitions and confusion in the world... for the benefit of ours and our kids' happy tomorrow.
simonthesinner Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 I will contend that you are wrong, we can measure a straight line we can measure the angle.Thank you. Feel free to play again
Gold Posted April 5, 2017 Author Posted April 5, 2017 I will contend that you are wrong, we can measure a straight line we can measure the angle. Haha indeed, what a straightforward and obvious way to distinguish truth from completely unproven, delusional superstitions and fantasies.
Jsbrads Posted April 14, 2017 Posted April 14, 2017 I think this is more Epistomology than Math. Read a book on Epi or better yet, audit a course in local university.
alt10 Posted July 9, 2017 Posted July 9, 2017 God may be axiomatic, but it has no characteristics. The axiomatic definition of a straight line still does not imply that a straight line has a beard. [edit]I would also say that the axiomatic definition of a straight line is not a proof that a straight line do exist; it is only a working concept that is true only in limited cases. For example, the definition assumes that infinity is a clear concept. However, the paradoxes derived from the concept of infinity (ie. the Ramanujan’s summation 1+2+3+…=-1/12, or the paradox where you can still fit additional guests within a hotel with infinitely many rooms where all rooms are occupied) prove the concept of infinity to be at least problematic
alt10 Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 On 4/5/2017 at 2:01 AM, simonthesinner said: I will contend that you are wrong, we can measure a straight line we can measure the angle. Thank you. Feel free to play again Ok, plan B By tentatively translate the words once spoken by Rafail Noica, the axiomatic definition might be: The thing to which you would give your only son, that is your god.
shirgall Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 Any statement taken as a first principle (or axiom, or a priori, or ab initio) does not remove the requirement that first principles must be consistent with one another.
Eudaimonic Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 An axiom is a true self-evident proposition. A proposition is considered 'self-evident' if in the act of refuting it, you confirm it and it is impossible to do otherwise. This can be done empirically ('Existence Exists' is an axiom because to deny that existence exists would mean deny existence including the existence of the phrase 'existence doesn't exist' which you can empirically verify as having existence) or it can be done logically ('There is such thing as Truth' is an axiom because to deny this is to posit that 'There is no such thing as Truth' is true, which is not logically justifiable because either there is no such thing as truth and the statement 'There is no such thing as truth' is not true or there is such thing as truth in which case the statement 'There is no such thing as truth' is false.) There is no way to deny these axioms without confirming them. Axioms tend to work off of each other (for 'There is such a thing as Truth' to be true 'Existence Exists' must be shown to be true first) and thus Metaphysical axioms generally lead to Epistemological axioms which is where axioms tend to 'die off' as only so much of our experience and therefore the truth can be know axiomatically (due to the problem of our senses, which can be fooled.) Epistemological methods are then used from there to deduce and infer truths among the other various branches of philosophy. The 'mathematical' axiom your friend is talking about is actually a different class of axioms (and defined differently) from a philosophical axiom which one might used to prove that God exists. Mathematical axioms are abstract representations of the imperfect shapes and dimensions of the things we find around us. Much like God, a 'line' as Mathematicians defines it, doesn't exist anywhere. It is a semi-arbitrary figure (based on what appear to be lines around us) which is used for practical purposes. In fact, much of the problem of Quantum Mechanics is due to the fact that the measurements that we have are imperfect measurements of what actually exists (though not by much) and we actually can't get a perfect measurement. They are 'axiomatic' in the sense that they are assumptions which mathematicians use as a 'ledge' so to speak from the world of experience to the world of abstractions which math and geometry deals with and back again. Because it's impossible (or at the very least we haven't been able to do it) to translate our exact experience into abstract measurement, mathematicians accept these assumptions as, essentially, 'close enough.' God is not axiomatic, ultimately, because you can falsify God without confirming His existence. 1
ofd Posted July 28, 2017 Posted July 28, 2017 Quote In fact, much of the problem of Quantum Mechanics is due to the fact that the measurements that we have are imperfect measurements of what actually exists (though not by much) and we actually can't get a perfect measurement. Which problem is that?
alt10 Posted July 28, 2017 Posted July 28, 2017 17 hours ago, shirgall said: Any statement taken as a first principle (or axiom, or a priori, or ab initio) does not remove the requirement that first principles must be consistent with one another. Granted. My intention was to point out that people may agree more about the faith thing if the game is to be played with real shekels
Eudaimonic Posted July 28, 2017 Posted July 28, 2017 7 hours ago, ofd said: Which problem is that? The question of whether we can measure the quantum realm accurately. The introduction of this PDF explains it better than I probably could. Sort of like, "how can we relate the quantum to the Newtonian with accuracy if our measurements are imperfect." To be clear though, I don't know whole lot about quantum mechanics and generally the topic bores me. FoundPhys1986.pdf
ofd Posted July 28, 2017 Posted July 28, 2017 Quote Sort of like, "how can we relate the quantum to the Newtonian with accuracy if our measurements are imperfect." The problem with the measurement 'only' occurs when quantum phenomena are not measured or if they don't interfere with other particles. Once that happens, they get an eigenstate and eigenvalue.
Eudaimonic Posted July 28, 2017 Posted July 28, 2017 30 minutes ago, ofd said: The problem with the measurement 'only' occurs when quantum phenomena are not measured or if they don't interfere with other particles. Once that happens, they get an eigenstate and eigenvalue. A part of me wishes it could respond intelligently to this! But yeah, you're probably right, like I said I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to the subject, I read about it in a book on free will once.
ofd Posted July 29, 2017 Posted July 29, 2017 The most important discovery was that atomic subparticles are different compared to atomic particles and molecules. Before Heisenberg, it was assumed that they are similar. The analogy is that the parts of a bike are different from a bike. The parts that make a bike are not tiny bikes, but look different, like wheels, a brake, and a saddle. Put together, they make a bike but for themselves alone they look and behave differently.
mgggb Posted July 30, 2017 Posted July 30, 2017 On 3/30/2017 at 11:29 PM, Gold said: In an answer to my "Where is proof that God exists?", a superstitious person said: "True statements can exist without proof. You don't prove that a straight line always is 180°/1pi it just is. Mathematicians didn't prove that a line is always 180° they defined it as such. It's a mathematical statement, albeit but the none the less a statement that no mathematical principle will logically prove because it is axiomatic. But it is still considered "true". How would you as an atheist answer that argument? Thank you. I find it axiomatic that I am God. I don't need to prove it to you because truth doesn't need to be proven. Now give me ten percent if your income every week for the rest of your life.
Recommended Posts