huxley:

CAn you tell us when numbers came into existence? What you see in the textbooks are representation of numbers, NOT numbers in themselves. Think about it this way - do numbers exist in a non-literate societies? Did numbers exist 20000 years ago before the invention of writing?

Pastor AIO:

Let's not conflate Numbers and Numerals.  Numbers exist in pre-literate societies but not numerals.  

Pastor AIO:

My brother, everything exists only in minds!

wirinet:

That is the main difference between creationists and evolutionists, while you creationists believe in superiority, evolutionists believe in equality. Homosapiens is not superior to anything, our evolutionary path lead us to having the largest brain( especially the neocortex), thereby giving us the highest intelligence. Other species has other parts of their brains more developed than our own, dogs have a highly developed sense of smell, our own olfactory is primitive compared to that of a bloodhound. same with eagle and the eye.

Yes i acknowledge that a combination of our, highly developed brains, our opposing thumb and our efficient communication skill, make us have physical collective dominance over all other species, that does give us the right to feel superior.

This feeling of superiority is what is responsible for a lot of the conflicts we have in the world today, one set of people feels their Gods are superior to all other Gods, making them superior to all other people. And all sorts of atrocities is committed in the guise of this superiority.

wirinet:

That's why goats are more practical than Humans, goats do not concerned about who or what created them or how to get favours and from him, nor are they concerned with which creator is superior. they are more concerned with finding and eating good green grass and finding a suitable mate to leave their genes behind.

huxley:

Yes, of course.  I was writing in response to the poster who thought that what you see in textbooks are numbers - they are not numbers, but representation of numbers or numerals.

Of course, numbers exist in pre-literate societies.  In fact, numbers exists ONLY in minds, in the minds of conscious (sentient) beings.

What do you think?   Do you think numbers existed 10 billion years ago, given our current knowledge about life in the universe?

wirinet:

That's why goats are more practical than Humans, goats do not concerned about who or what created them or how to get favours and from him, nor are they concerned with which creator is superior. they are more concerned with finding and eating good green grass and finding a suitable mate to leave their genes behind.

Chrisbenogor:

@chukwudi
And you have seen goats tell their fellow goats that they cannot understand humans?
Lol I think they are more concerned about their grass lol.

chukwudi44:

That a goat does not bother about it's creator does not mean it's creator does not exist.

Also a goat cannot inquire  from it's peers about it's creator because of their lower intellect which limits their power of communication.likewise man cannot comprehend the nature and existence of it's creator because of their lower intellect(which is inferior to that of God)

noetic2:

I think u are going too far with ur premise in defining and using the term "existence" ?

What does it mean to exist? do u refer to been felt by the 5 human organs. . . if so u are far from reality.
Numbers do EXIST. they are symbolically represented by literate pictures/pigments. . .this representation does not mean they exist, but it reflects the basis of their existence.

The possibility of making mathematical,accounting and other calculations using numbers . . .and the acceptance of the figures (outcome) by several parties involved simply implies that numbers do EXIST.
why do u accept the account balance of ur bank statement as the true figures of ur account? u do simply because u believe/subsribe to the numerical representations presented on ur statement. That my friend is evidence for the existence of numbers.

whether u subscribe to the existence of this numbers is another thing. . . .but one thing is that numbers do EXIST.

wirinet:

If you insist that numbers do exist, then define for us its nature. Also can numbers stand on its own, like what is 100. Does a number mean the same thing to all people or a certain class of people that has agreed to its exact meaning. If my account says $100, or N100, or Y100, do they mean the same thing to everybody at all times.

Now which is the true representation of the number two? is it  2, ii,貳( ,二, ١, and hundreds of other symbolic representations. Also the pronunciation of the number two is as varied as its symbolic representation. I thinks God and Numbers have the same characteristic. It is a symbolic representation of nature unique to the particular group of persons doing the representing.

Prizm: Here’s a concise formulation of the Cosmological Argument (for those who may not bother to do the necessary research):

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

What this means quite plainly is that the universe along with space, time, matter and energy came into being. The universe is not a necessary entity; it is a contingent entity. It does not have an infinite past. The only necessary being/entities one can think of are a) numbers b) an unembodied personal mind. This is the conception of God that theists work with—a personal, unembodied, spaceless, infinite, eternal mind. It goes without saying that numbers though necessary, do not have any creative ability. It follows that the cause of the universe is a mind greater than the universe—by which we mean something that is immaterial, boundless, spaceless and eternally pre-existent.

How is it then that when you present the Cosmological argument, an atheist’s response is “What Caused God?” That question simply shows a misunderstanding of the argument. Anyone asking this question should familiarize him/herself with what “necessary” and “contingent” entities are. That question is as laughable as asking “What makes a triangle have three sides whose angles add up to 180 degrees?”, or “Why should a triangle have three sides with angles that add up to 180 degrees?” The answer is as simple as saying “That is what a triangle is DEFINED as”. I have nothing to discuss with anyone who wants to argue with definitions. If you do not like the definition given, go ahead, define yours and see if we may agree or disagree.

Another argument an atheist may make when confronted with the Cosmological Argument is to suggest that “the universe is uncaused” which is a patently false idea given its finitude in the past. An atheist is left with the worst option of declaring that the “universe just popped out of nothing, from nothing and by nothing” and that I suggest is even worse than magic. Nothing pops out of nothing, from nothing, by nothing. To suggest otherwise is to be painfully irrational. Not even radioactive decay; or virtual particles which merely arise and disappear from fluctuations in the quantum vacuum—a veritable ‘sea’ of energy.

To refute the argument, you have to shoot down or falsify the premises. Otherwise, you'll arrive at the painful conclusion whether you want to or not.

KAG:



Secondly, and probably most importantly, the first postulate of the cosmological argument is wrong. [b]Not everything that begins to exist has a cause, nor does every occurrence necessarily need a tangible precedent. [/b]Sure in Aristotle's via Aquinas' via the "times" of many modern theistic apologists all that had been observed indicated that the first premise must be an axiom; however, with the onset of the likes of quantum physics and even studies of radioactivity it's known that things are different from human intuited arguments.

Finally, yes even virtual particles and radioactive decay. The argument is that everything has to be caused. They contravene the causality premise because, particularly in the case of virtual particles, the fluctuation isn't caused by the "veritable ‘sea’ of energy".

Prizm:

After reading through the number of posts that have appeared mysteriously back on to this closed thread since I last posted a reply, I have to say that I am not so comfortable with the idea that the thread can be closed arbitrarily or that a single post for example has character limits. Many times, discussions on this issue require a lot more than a few simple sentences to develop an argument and effectively communicate. Besides, I am not a regular participant on these boards. For these reasons, I am tempted to carry my portion of the discussion from this forum away to a blog for those atheists who really want to pursue a line of discussion with me in particular.

The sense in doing this is because it enables me to isolate those sort of arguments coming from the theist or agnostic side of the fence that are really not germane to the discourse or that  I actually do not endorse; or which I feel are not communicating effectively. I assure any atheist or agnostic that is interested in really discussing these issues in an atmosphere devoid of ad-hominem attacks that it will be a really fun and enriching exercise.

To proceed, I’ll post my reply to Wirinet’s question in this personal blog below. If Wirinet feels like continuing the discussion with me over at that blog, he/she will be deeply appreciated. I will also repost the Cosmological Argument as a way of re-introducing the discussion for people like Chris, Huxley and Tudor if they are interested. These gentlemen strike me as reasonably possessed by the topic, so it will be great if we can discuss these issues in an environment devoid of the occasional and unintended ambient chatter or noise. My guarantee to these people is that their objections or skepticism will be graciously received and honestly answered (to the best of my ability); also their opposing but positive cases (arguments) will be diligently considered; and in doing so, we would learn a few things ourselves. This is what intelligent discussions are after all. See you all sometime.

Cheers.

http://anaedo.blog-city.com/on_numbers_a_reply_to_wirinet.htm

http://anaedo.blog-city.com/the_cosmological_argument.htm

noetic2:

1.The nature of number can only be gasped from it uses and perceivable representation.
100 is universally the numerical addition/subtraction of other values to arrive at a figure. This figure is representable by anything as agreed upon by users. . . .but the VALUE remains 100/one hundred.

2. The £ or $ signs add a very different meaning to the number in question.
The value and significance of the number remains 100. . .  .but its meaning is redefined when annexed with other symbols.

3. The nature of a number is therefore defined as a value that is explicitly representable and acceptable to respondents. Number can also be represented using various symbols and notions. . . the symbols and notions are only relevant in the context of the numerical usage. For example. statements A,B and C carry different meanings but numerically have the same value

statement A: Ade wants to sell 100 apples.
statement B: Ade wants to convert 100 dollars.
statement C: by the injunctions of the sharia court, Ade was given 100 strokes of the kain.

4. Based on the above it is safe to state that number is explicitly different from any other value and significant or insignificant notion used with it in any expression. meaning that 100 is independent of dollars, when the expression $100 is written.
As such number (100) is an entity on its own.

5. being an independent entity, number therefore exists.

6. The representation of number, though divergent depending on the language and mode of communication. One thing is certain the numerical value of number is universal, regardless of the language.

7. Number as an entity, simply EXISTS.

Numerical or pictorial representation of numbers do not dispute the value of this numbers.
pronunciation of a number is subject to the language in context. . .it has no connection to the VALUE of the number.

C2H5OH:

atheists already have a hard enough time convincing themselves that there is no God.

Prizm:
Here’s a concise formulation of the Cosmological Argument (for those who may not bother to do the necessary research):

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

What this means quite plainly is that the universe along with space, time, matter and energy came into being.

The universe is not a necessary entity; it is a contingent entity. It does not have an infinite past.

mazaje:

Actually we don't need to "convince" our selves that there is a god because you guys do not even have a coherent and universally acceptable definition of what god is. . . . . .what really do you mean by god?

Of the great secrets of God, which God revealed and told to Enoch, and spoke with him face to face.

AND the Lord summoned me, and said to me: 'Enoch, sit down on my left with Gabriel.'

2 And I bowed down to the Lord, and the Lord spoke to me: Enoch, beloved, all thou seest, all things that are standing finished I tell to thee even before the very beginning, all that I created from non-being, and visible things from invisible.

3 Hear, Enoch, and take in these my words, for not to My angels have I told my secret, and I have not told them their rise, nor my endless realm, nor have they understood my creating, which I tell thee to-day.

4 For before all things were visible, I alone used to go about in the invisible things, like the sun from east to west, and from west to east.

5 But even the sun has peace in itself, while I found no peace, because I was creating all things, and I conceived the thought of placing foundations, and of creating visible creation.

Chapter XXVI, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch