[maadio]

Q: "Why does the first law of kinematics work?"
A: "Because the first law of kinematics was written because that's how things worked in the first place."

Q: "Why do 1 and 1 equal 2?"
A: "Because it just works that way. If 1 and 1 made 3, than 3 would just be what we know as 2."

Sorry guys, but you're not being too persuasive here. The laws of logic and physics, etc. don't cause things to work a certain way... On the contrary, those laws are in existence simply because things work that way anyway.

God Bless!
-Andy

[maadio]

So who here has taken any higher level physics class?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Ive just taken the calc, and chemistry in college.

[+Donny]

1)thats not the ontological argument
2)I would like an answer, Jerry. a priori or a posteriori for math?

[Sean]

Originally posted by JerryLove
formula != pattern != order.

Why do things in the universe conform to the rules I have made to describe things in the universe?

Of course, if I accepted your premise that this was orderly, and that ordely proves a creator who was orderly (God), then I must conclude that God proves he was created (ad infinitum).

Because you seem amazed that 1+1-1=1; I understand why.

Exactly, thats what I was attempting to say earlier. Why can't the laws of physics exist without God but an orderly God who knows these rules can exist without being created? I dont' see how you can use your logic to discredit one belief but not the other.

[JerryLove]

I would like an answer, Jerry. a priori or a posteriori for math?

Math was understood after seeing the evidence that proves its applicability.

[Mike Graham]

Also, isn't it possible that if we deal with this randomness so much we think it is order, having never experienced order.

[+Donny]

So, after seeing some examples of addition, we use induction to create systems? Thus, it is a posteriori combined with enormous amounts of induction?

[MonkeeSage]

I was just going to note the same thing, Donny. Bertrand Russell said, that "the general principles of science, such as the belief in the reign of law, and the belief that every event must have a cause, are as completely dependent upon the inductive principle as are the beliefs of daily life. All such general principles are believed because mankind have found innumerable instances of their truth and no instances of their falsehood. But this affords no evidence for their truth in the future, unless the inductive principle is assumed." The same thing appears to be true of math.

On the most findumental level, one will find that induction is absolutely necessary--enumeration / individuation (i.e., "counting") would be impossible if the relationship between 1 and 2 could change upon any future calculation, and though it has not been calculated in all instances (namely, future instances), it is assumed that the relationship will remain the same. Sometimes this act of induction (i.e., moving from a sampling to a general principle) is called an "axiom" (e.g., the law of numerical identity) or similar, but "a rose by any other name" is still a rose.

John did a wonderful job of showing the philosophical problems that come from using / assuming induction on a non-Christian basis, in terms of one's larger theory of knowledge (epistemology), here.


Shelumi`El
Jordan

S.D.G

[JerryLove]

On the most findumental level, one will find that induction is absolutely necessary--enumeration / individuation (i.e., "counting")

And if you disagreed about induction being true in this case, then you would have an on-topic discussion. But since you do, you are attemting to start a 4th simultanious trancendental argument that really has as much to do with this topic as it has to do with good cookie recipies.

[MonkeeSage]

Oh, then you agree that God created man to think God's thoughts after Him and that is the only reason why induction works (is the "medium")? I'll be. I would have thought otherwise.

Could it be, that you disagree with us about why induction is valid (about the "medium"), and therefore cannot appeal to our reasons ("medium") for using induction to justify your own use of induction; and your constant appeals to the fact that we both use induction are what are truely irrelevant--since we have very different reasons for using it?

"These two propositions are far from being the same.

[1.] I have found that such an object has always been attended with such an effect, and
[2.] I foresee, that other objects, which are, in appearance, similar, will be attended with similar effects.

I shall allow, if you please, that the one proposition may justly be inferred from the other: I know, in fact, that it always is inferred.

But if you insist that the inference is made by a chain of reasoning, I desire you to produce that reasoning...There is required a medium, which may enable the mind to draw such an inference, if indeed it be drawn by reasoning and argument. [ I]t is incumbent on those to produce [that medium], who assert that it really exists... " (Hume, David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, II:3).


Shelumi`El
Jordan

S.D.G

[JerryLove]

Could it be, that you disagree with us about why induction is valid (about the "medium"), and therefore cannot appeal to our reasons

Well "thanks for sharing". If I want to appeat to your reasons I will tell you. And I will probibly do it ON THE APPROPRIATE TOPIC.

Until then, I don't really car *why* you think that; It's only important TO THIS TOPIC that you do think that.

Want to talk math now? Or are you incapable of typing anything but the same old propiganda about transendentalism.

[MonkeeSage]

1. Math supposes the Inductive Principle (that we can reason from particular instances to abstract laws).
2. Atheists have no basis in reasoning for the supposition of the Inductive Principle.
3. The Inductive Principle is accepted pragmatically by atheists (it "works"--we can build computers and count to 10 with it).
4. The Counter-Inductive Principle (that we cannot reason from particular instances to abstract laws), can be held over against the Inductive Principle, on equal epistemic grounds (no basis in reasoning).
5. The Counter-Inductive Principle is accepted pragmatically by those who accept it (it "works"--we can explain things like Leptons and Planck space with it).

========

Who is right? The Inductionists or the Counter-Inductionists? How does one go about determining the answer to disputes like these (i.e., disputes about the nature of reality)? I.e., what is the Atheistic foundation in reasoning, for maths? Did the hand of Pythagoras come out of the clouds and write the principia on stone tables? (Tongue in cheek). There has to be some foundation (and it cannot be arbitrary or pragmatic, either), for doing maths. What is that foundation on Atheism?

You say the world, and show me that one apple plus one apple is two apples, and then fall speechless when I ask you to take away 5 aples from the 2 you have (since it involves an abstract conception of overwritting 5 numbers with 5 spaces and then shifts and subsequent numbers applied to it to the front of the space--i.e., it is a relationship between space and number, and that is an abstract idea that goes beyond simply counting objects and deals with things like "place holder" and "limiting concept").

When the dispute is about the way the world is, and appel to the way the world is doesn't due much good. What is the foundation in reasoning for maths, and by it, the supposition of the Inductive Principle, on Atheism?


Shelumi`El
Jordan

S.D.G

[BillSPrestonEsq]

exactly the problem my philosophy teacher realizes he has.

[JerryLove]

But not your math teacher.