RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
September 9, 2015 at 5:33 am
(This post was last modified: September 9, 2015 at 5:37 am by robvalue.)
"Mathematics" doesn't literally exist, it is an abstract concept.
I've seen this false equivocation a lot. If "god" exists in the same way, then it only actually exists in the form of images in people's brains. Images in brains may map to some existent object, they may map to an abstract concept consistent with reality or they map to nothing in reality. At best you're equating "god" with the laws of the universe.
As it happens, pure mathematics is not even required to map to anything in reality. All that is required is internal consistency. Whether or not it has any practical application is irrelevant. In the same way, you could come up with an abstract notion of an internally consistent god, and it might have nothing to do with reality either.
This form of "existence" is meaningless for something that's meant to have an intelligence, unless you can explain further. We have no experience of any intelligence distinct from a physical body of some sort. We don't know that it's possible. Just saying, "Yeah, well there could be" is not an argument nor is it evidence.
I've seen this false equivocation a lot. If "god" exists in the same way, then it only actually exists in the form of images in people's brains. Images in brains may map to some existent object, they may map to an abstract concept consistent with reality or they map to nothing in reality. At best you're equating "god" with the laws of the universe.
As it happens, pure mathematics is not even required to map to anything in reality. All that is required is internal consistency. Whether or not it has any practical application is irrelevant. In the same way, you could come up with an abstract notion of an internally consistent god, and it might have nothing to do with reality either.
This form of "existence" is meaningless for something that's meant to have an intelligence, unless you can explain further. We have no experience of any intelligence distinct from a physical body of some sort. We don't know that it's possible. Just saying, "Yeah, well there could be" is not an argument nor is it evidence.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum