Numbers vs God

Atlamalta
Posts: 7
Joined: 2013-10-27
User is offlineOffline
Numbers vs God

I think we pretty often hear the analogy between numbers and God, trying to surpass the lack of evidence. Theists argue that, "God is just like numbers", accesible to pure reason, so they don't need evidence and neither should we, because if we accept math under that premise, we should accept God's existence too.

And here is where I can't put into words what the fallacy is. Although it seems obvious that "God" is not like the numbers-math.

 

Maybe this has been asked before (I couldn't find a -search- option) but I would appreciate your help clarifying me why this analogy fails (or success).

 

Thanks.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Atlamalta wrote:I think we

Atlamalta wrote:

I think we pretty often hear the analogy between numbers and God, trying to surpass the lack of evidence. Theists argue that, "God is just like numbers", accesible to pure reason, so they don't need evidence and neither should we, because if we accept math under that premise, we should accept God's existence too.

And here is where I can't put into words what the fallacy is. Although it seems obvious that "God" is not like the numbers-math.

 

Maybe this has been asked before (I couldn't find a -search- option) but I would appreciate your help clarifying me why this analogy fails (or success).

 

Thanks.

 

It fails no matter what pet deity claim you'd argue for, Allah or Yahweh or Vishnu. Anytime you start with a naked assertion anything that follows as an argument will fail. Crap in crap out.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Atlamalta wrote:I think we

Atlamalta wrote:

I think we pretty often hear the analogy between numbers and God, trying to surpass the lack of evidence. Theists argue that, "God is just like numbers", accesible to pure reason, so they don't need evidence and neither should we, because if we accept math under that premise, we should accept God's existence too.

And here is where I can't put into words what the fallacy is. Although it seems obvious that "God" is not like the numbers-math.

 

Maybe this has been asked before (I couldn't find a -search- option) but I would appreciate your help clarifying me why this analogy fails (or success).

 

Thanks.

You would have to be a little bit more specific for me to identify the fallacy that you seem to be referring to.

I can not recall ever hearing, god is numbers ? Can you give me more detail ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Atlamalta
Posts: 7
Joined: 2013-10-27
User is offlineOffline
Explanation

I'm not saying "God IS numbers" I'm saying that theists use numbers as an analogy, to show that some truth can be reached through reason alone; and more so, that God is just as numbers are: "abstract, non-physical, etc"

So if we accept the existence or reality of numbers, we should accept God's reality too.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Atlamalta wrote:So if we

Atlamalta wrote:

So if we accept the existence or reality of numbers, we should accept God's reality too.

that's quite possibly the worst logical fallacy i've ever seen on this site.  congratulations.

incidentally, i don't think anyone "accepts" the "existence" of numbers.  abstract ideas, even those that are useful predictors in the physical world like numbers, have no ontological status.

if being able to conceive of something automatically makes it existent, then every god in every religion, past and present, should exist simultaneously.  so should jackalopes.  so should that stupid fucking spaghetti monster everybody talks about.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


wakawaka
Posts: 86
Joined: 2011-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian 37 says://It fails no

Brian 37 says:

//It fails no matter what pet deity claim you'd argue for, Allah or Yahweh or Vishnu. Anytime you start with a naked assertion anything that follows as an argument will fail. Crap in crap out.//

Is it a naked assertion to assume that all naked assertions fail?  Do you have all knowledge to make such a claim? You presuppose the laws of logic do you not?  They are immaterial and absolute yet you cannot account for them(Naked assertion).


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
wakawaka wrote:Brian 37

wakawaka wrote:

Brian 37 says:

//It fails no matter what pet deity claim you'd argue for, Allah or Yahweh or Vishnu. Anytime you start with a naked assertion anything that follows as an argument will fail. Crap in crap out.//

Is it a naked assertion to assume that all naked assertions fail? 

No.

wakawaka wrote:

Do you have all knowledge to make such a claim?

It's not necessary. Someone once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Now if doing the same thing is yielding positive results (or you're making a prediction, and doing the same thing continuously proves it true) it is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt seems to be a troublesome concept for theists.

wakawaka wrote:

You presuppose the laws of logic do you not?  They are immaterial and absolute yet you cannot account for them(Naked assertion).

Humans are pattern seeking mammals. Logic is a tool that we use in this vein. I can tell you 100% that cold is not hot, because we have defined the words cold and hot to mean different things. Of course, 2 people could have a different opinion of whether it is cold or hot in a room, but we realize that humans (and all animals who can sense temperature) can have a different perception of how they feel the temperature is in a certain spot. The argument that we can't know anything, or that we can't trust our own brain, without god, is beyond idiotic.

 

Pretend you woke up, and forgot everything about...well everything. Within reason of course. You still had a solid capacity to learn, and you can see, walk, and hear fine, but you forget...EVERYTHING. You find yourself in this weird place (since every place is weird if you forgot everything). As time goes by, it gets brighter out, and then darker. God or no god, you will have deduced after a couple of days that this day/night thing seems to be a cycle. When it's day, you'll know night is coming. When it's night, you'll know day is coming. You might take a long time to figure out what causes it, but the cycle seems consistent enough that expecting it to continue is appropriate. I don't need Genesis to tell me about that cycle (that somehow works for the first few days without the sun....)

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.