So...guess I'm the new guy

[Reforged]

Oh trust me, we're not in the same gene pool. I addressed your claims repeatedly and you responded with deflection.

No-one was claiming anything like what you just typed. You are responding to a proposition only you have voiced. Also an assumption isn't an assumption if it has evidence to back it up. This has been voiced repeatedly but it has failed to penetrate that thick, balding neanderthal skull of yours.

In-short you are an imbecile who came here expecting that his cheap Jersey Shore rip-off take on what little philosophy he knows would stand-up to speculation and you were wrong. Repeating to yourself over and over that you are right doesn't change that.

Deal with it.

Typical irrational atheist. Full of ad hominems, not a single rational argument.

Really? Would you care to explain to everyone how mathematics is a system that has absoloutely no evidence behind it and is therefore an assumption? I'm sure we'd be riveted to hear your explaination.

Or how about how intuition and instinct is more important than rational, critical thinking and technological progress?

Could you also give us some insight into how the human mind and science are in any kind of conflict whatsoever?

Perhaps while you're at it you can explain how the horse and cart was a more efficent way of transport than the automobile and how your tin foil hat protects you from mind control.

Go on, enlighten us and convince us you haven't pushed yourself into a corner where your intellectual credibility will die a cold, lonely death before it had any chance for the slightest acknowledgement. :-)

[Cyberman]

Really? Would you care to explain to everyone how mathematics is a system that has absoloutely no evidence behind it and is therefore an assumption? I'm sure we'd be riveted to hear your explaination.

Why is there never an appropriate YT clip when I need one?

No matter:

Blackadder: Right Baldrick, let's try again shall we? This is called "adding". If I have two beans, and then I add two more beans, what do I have?

Baldrick: Some beans.

Blackadder: Yes... and no. Let's try again shall we? I have two beans, then I add two more beans. What does that make?

Baldrick: A very small casserole.

Blackadder: Baldrick, the ape creatures of the Indus have mastered this. Now try again. One, two, three, four. So how many are there?

Baldrick: Three.

Blackadder: What?

Baldrick: ...and that one.

Blackadder: Three... and that one. So if I add that one to the three what will I have?

Baldrick: Oh! Some beans.

Blackadder: Ye-es... To you Baldrick, the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Typical irrational atheist. Full of ad hominems, not a single rational argument.

Really? Would you care to explain to everyone how mathematics is a system that has absoloutely no evidence behind it and is therefore an assumption? I'm sure we'd be riveted to hear your explaination.

Or how about how intuition and instinct is more important than rational, critical thinking and technological progress?

Could you also give us some insight into how the human mind and science are in any kind of conflict whatsoever?

Perhaps while you're at it you can explain how the horse and cart was a more efficent way of transport than the automobile and how your tin foil hat protects you from mind control.

Go on, enlighten us and convince us you haven't pushed yourself into a corner where your intellectual credibility will die a cold, lonely death before it had any chance for the slightest acknowledgement. :-)

When did I say it has no evidence? You sure you're in the thread you think you are?

I said mathematical propositions cannot be scientifically proven. Numbers don't exist in the physical world to be observed, tested, experimented on. (1) In fact, if numbers truly do exist, they violate the very physicalist paradigm of science that suggests that everything that exists is physical, because numbers are not physical. (2)

If you believe that scientific exploration is the only way to discover truth, mathematics and logic are just scientific assumptions. (3)

The only way for you to escape the problem of assuming mathematics and logic is to acknowledge that science and materialism does not account for all of reality.

Go on. Now it's your turn to enlighten us.

[Haydn2]

Honestly this guy is just an irritant ..... he has nothing to add and he's boring. Sorry , just what i've observed

[Reforged]

Really? Would you care to explain to everyone how mathematics is a system that has absoloutely no evidence behind it and is therefore an assumption? I'm sure we'd be riveted to hear your explaination.

Or how about how intuition and instinct is more important than rational, critical thinking and technological progress?

Could you also give us some insight into how the human mind and science are in any kind of conflict whatsoever?

Perhaps while you're at it you can explain how the horse and cart was a more efficent way of transport than the automobile and how your tin foil hat protects you from mind control.

Go on, enlighten us and convince us you haven't pushed yourself into a corner where your intellectual credibility will die a cold, lonely death before it had any chance for the slightest acknowledgement. :-)

When did I say it has no evidence? You sure you're in the thread you think you are?

I said mathematical propositions cannot be scientifically proven. Numbers don't exist in the physical world to be observed, tested, experimented on. (1) In fact, if numbers truly do exist, they violate the very physicalist paradigm of science that suggests that everything that exists is physical, because numbers are not physical. (2)

If you believe that scientific exploration is the only way to discover truth, mathematics and logic are just scientific assumptions. (3)

The only way for you to escape the problem of assuming mathematics and logic is to acknowledge that science and materialism does not account for all of reality.

Go on. Now it's your turn to enlighten us.

Am I your English teacher or something?

assumption/əˈsəm(p)SHən/
A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof: "they made certain assumptions about the market".
The action of taking or beginning to take power or responsibility: "the assumption of an active role in regional settlements".

Therefore mathematics must have no proof or evidence behind it to be an assumption, let alone one which is metaphysical. Logic and mathematics have real world results and consequences. It has proven accurate on almost all accounts and has never failed us. It certainly didn't fail us when we used mathematics to calculate how to put a man into space and technology developed using rational thinking, scientific approach and logical deduction to put theory into practise. Most would see that alone as evidence and it isn't the only case that illustrates my point, infact there are countless I could use.
So please, elaborate on why logic and mathematics have no evidence or proof behind their validity and are therefore assumptions.
Then explain what makes these assumptions related to the metaphysical as opposed to simply being conceptual.

No-one claimed it accounted for all of reality. We haven't even properly explored our universe yet, such a sweeping statement could not be made. You are making the claim it definitely doesn't work without any examples where it doesn't work. Yours is the only sweeping statement made in this thread and it is yet to be even remotely justified.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

When did I say it has no evidence? You sure you're in the thread you think you are?

I said mathematical propositions cannot be scientifically proven. Numbers don't exist in the physical world to be observed, tested, experimented on. (1) In fact, if numbers truly do exist, they violate the very physicalist paradigm of science that suggests that everything that exists is physical, because numbers are not physical. (2)

If you believe that scientific exploration is the only way to discover truth, mathematics and logic are just scientific assumptions. (3)

The only way for you to escape the problem of assuming mathematics and logic is to acknowledge that science and materialism does not account for all of reality.

Go on. Now it's your turn to enlighten us.

Am I your English teacher or something?

assumption/əˈsəm(p)SHən/
A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof: "they made certain assumptions about the market".
The action of taking or beginning to take power or responsibility: "the assumption of an active role in regional settlements".

Therefore mathematics must have no proof or evidence behind it to be an assumption, let alone one which is metaphysical. Logic and mathematics have real world results and consequences. It has proven accurate on almost all accounts and has never failed us. It certainly didn't fail us when we used mathematics to calculate how to put a man into space and technology developed using rational thinking, scientific approach and logical deduction to put theory into practise. Most would see that alone as evidence and it isn't the only case that illustrates my point, infact there are countless I could use.
So please, elaborate on why logic and mathematics have no evidence or proof behind their validity and are therefore assumptions.
Then explain what makes these assumptions related to the metaphysical as opposed to simply being conceptual.

No-one claimed it accounted for all of reality. We haven't even properly explored our universe yet, such a sweeping statement could not be made. You are making the claim it definitely doesn't work without any examples where it doesn't work. Yours is the only sweeping statement made in this thread and it is yet to be even remotely justified.

I'd like to see some scientific evidence for the existence of mathematical truths. Can I see some please?

[JohnDG]

I'd like to see some emotion and personality behind what you guys are saying, soooo boring.

[The Grand Nudger]

NP Vinny. Take "1" chestnut...put it in your hands....now, take "1" more chestnut....put it in your hands. Now, you have "2" nuts. Solving both your problems with the assumptions of math and other, more serious, issues. I'll do the same thing here, on my end (if you absolutely need me to), we'll have anyone else who cares to involve themselves do the same, lets see if our results are similar?

IOW 1+1=2......christ almighty, I'm so embarrassed that I had to explain this to anyone.....

[Reforged]

Am I your English teacher or something?

assumption/əˈsəm(p)SHən/
A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof: "they made certain assumptions about the market".
The action of taking or beginning to take power or responsibility: "the assumption of an active role in regional settlements".

Therefore mathematics must have no proof or evidence behind it to be an assumption, let alone one which is metaphysical. Logic and mathematics have real world results and consequences. It has proven accurate on almost all accounts and has never failed us. It certainly didn't fail us when we used mathematics to calculate how to put a man into space and technology developed using rational thinking, scientific approach and logical deduction to put theory into practise. Most would see that alone as evidence and it isn't the only case that illustrates my point, infact there are countless I could use.
So please, elaborate on why logic and mathematics have no evidence or proof behind their validity and are therefore assumptions.
Then explain what makes these assumptions related to the metaphysical as opposed to simply being conceptual.

No-one claimed it accounted for all of reality. We haven't even properly explored our universe yet, such a sweeping statement could not be made. You are making the claim it definitely doesn't work without any examples where it doesn't work. Yours is the only sweeping statement made in this thread and it is yet to be even remotely justified.

I'd like to see some scientific evidence for the existence of mathematical truths. Can I see some please?

So the trajectory and specifications of the spacecraft that put men on the moon being accurate despite a huge potential margin of error that could result in disaster isn't evidence?
Is that what you're saying?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

NP Vinny. Take "1" chestnut...put it in your hands....now, take "1" more chestnut....put it in your hands. Now, you have "2" nuts. Solving both your problems with the assumptions of math and other, more serious, issues. I'll do the same thing here, on my end (if you absolutely need me to), we'll have anyone else who cares to involve themselves do the same, lets see if our results are similar?

IOW 1+1=2......christ almighty, I'm so embarrassed that I had to explain this to anyone.....

No, that doesn't work.

Adding 1+1 chestnuts to make 2 chestnuts presupposes that 1+1=2, ie it presupposes the validity of mathematics in order to prove the validity of mathematics. Arguing in a circle.

Try again, won't ya?