"...one plus one equals two..." This depends on you defining each of the words 'one', 'plus', 'equals', and 'two' in specific ways. In other words it's a consequence of the definitions of the concepts behind them, but it isn't required. For instance 'one' doesn't exist, at all. It's an abstraction. All of math _is_ abstraction. As a result, math is more like a game we play with ourselves. It's based on unprovable axioms that we just accept outright as a starting point, not something we can show to be true, and the _rest_ of mathematics is merely working out the consequences of those rules we set up at the start. The same goes for laws of logic. We find it useful to think about most things in those terms, but there _are_ other modes of thought that, within their own spheres, seem to function quite well in which the Law of Non-Contradiction, the one you put up there, doesn't actually hold. "...there are objective moral values and duties..." No, there aren't. There's just our common desire as the sorts of beings we are to want to avoid suffering. However it being common to us doesn't make it somehow objectively true. "...there is an innate morality that is universal across all human culture..." To the extent that there is, it contains very, very little, and almost nothing can be agreed upon 100%. "...we seek happiness... and this is because of the natural law..." No, it's a result of evolution. We take happiness most often in things that further our own existence and ability to procreate. "...humans are not the creators of all truths..." Truth doesn't need 'a creator'. Truth is merely that which is accurate of reality. Whatever reality is, that's what's true about it. "...God is love..." No, love is an electrochemical reaction happening in a functioning brain, just like every other emotion and thought, at least as far as is at all testable and reasonable to believe. Have a nice day!
"This depends on you defining each of the words 'one', 'plus', 'equals', and 'two' in specific ways. In other words it's a consequence of the definitions of the concepts behind them, but it isn't required. For instance 'one' doesn't exist, at all. It's an abstraction. All of math is abstraction. As a result, math is more like a game we play with ourselves. It's based on unprovable axioms that we just accept outright as a starting point, not something we can show to be true, and the rest of mathematics is merely working out the consequences of those rules we set up at the start. The same goes for laws of logic. We find it useful to think about most things in those terms, but there are other modes of thought that, within their own spheres, seem to function quite well in which the Law of Non-Contradiction, the one you put up there, doesn't actually hold." I'm not sure what other definitions you could give for the words 'one', 'plus, 'equals', and 'two', and in what world or reality could one plus one equal something other than two. If math is something like a game how is it that math transcends language and culture that is enduring and permanent. We can actually show mathematics to be true not just by the definitions and axioms but with patterns in nature such as the Fibonacci sequence, Pi, the predictions and equations that is precise. If we can't show math to be true then what can we show to be true? As for the law of non-contradiction A cannot be both A and not A at the same time. Again not sure what "other modes of thought" you are thinking of. In what other mode can "if A is true and A implies B then B is true" being true necessarily or 2+3=5 and not 4.89, a triangle has three sides, etc "No, there aren't. There's just our common desire as the sorts of beings we are to want to avoid suffering. However, it being common to us doesn't make it somehow objectively true." Agree that being in common doesn't make it objectively true but I would argue that moral disagreements presume objectivity because we're not arguing about things purely subjective like our preference for foods. This common desire that we have to avoid suffering exists across all cultures and times and if it were not objective moral values and duties then could we even make the case that x is wrong and hold individuals accountable for their actions. "No, it's a result of evolution. We take happiness most often in things that further our own existence and ability to procreate." "No, love is an electrochemical reaction happening in a functioning brain, just like every other emotion and thought, at least as far as is at all testable and reasonable to believe." Interestingly, you bring up evolution but can't see how evolution gives us any reason for love that is unconditional/radical selfless love like from the example of Jesus/Buddha. Does evolution account for the people that they accepted into their circle who were regarded as outcasts? Seems like evolution cannot account for this kind of love that has transformed the lives of billions throughout history. Describing the physical processes in the brain the experience doesn't prove causation but correlation. Also, cannot see how reducing the experience of love or any subjective experience to electrical processes in the brain produces consciousness. "Truth doesn't need 'a creator'. Truth is merely that which is accurate of reality. Whatever reality is, that's what's true about it." If truth is merely that which is accurate of reality then what about the problem of accessing reality given how our perceptions of reality and the ambiguity of what we mean by "reality" and how we make judgments about reality that are consistent with laws of logic. If we judge reality by truth and truth by reality then it would be circular without an independent standard. How is it that mathematical and logical truths fit together with our physical reality that is consistent and not dependent on one's version of reality.
@@YemilSerret *I'm not sure what other definitions you could give for the words 'one', 'plus, 'equals' and 'two'* We can't even define 'one', really. What's 'one' apple, for instance? It's an abstraction. We could just as easily have a mathematics where the base unit isn't 1 as we understand it now, but is pi instead. It'd make calculating curves, which are _far_ more common in nature, _vastly_ easier. *we can actually show mathematics to be true not just by the definitions with the predicates contained in the subject but with patterns nature such as the Fibonacci sequence, Pi, the predictions that we use with mathematics accurately describes our physical universe.* The mathematics we have can be used as a description of nature, sure. But so can other maths, ones with different predicates. For instance, if 'pi' were the base unit, then you wouldn't need to calculate it, it'd just be standard. Instead you'd have to calculate what we call 1, and it'd be just as much 'a thing we can use to describe stuff'. We likely wouldn't have the Fibonacci sequence with such a start, true, but unless we start with such a predicate set and work out what _its_ consequences are for several thousand years the way we do with the set we actually use, there's no telling what other sequences we might come up with that could be useful. Maybe Einstein's field equations would be vastly easier and more elegant (since it's based on curves), and would make quantum gravity obviously some other calculation instead of the mystery it remains today. We can't tell because we don't work in those terms. And sure, things like why shells grow in the way they do would be more mysterious to us, but we'd just be trading one set of mysteries for another. *Again not sure what "other modes of thought" you are thinking of.* Paraconsistent logic. *Agree that being in common doesn't make it objectively true but I would argue that moral disagreements presume objectivity because we're not arguing about things purely subjective like our preference for foods.* Yes, we are arguing about something purely subjective. For instance, consider whether we have a subjective preference for apples or feces. That _is_ a subjective preference. We have a _much_ more diametrically opposing view on this, with a near universal preference among humans for one over the other, and most would say eating the second is 'wrong', on a nearly equally visceral level. Yet our reaction to between apples and carrots isn't nearly as strong. We get the same thing with morals. Some things we near universally prefer one thing over another, and in other areas we disagree less strongly. Exactly the same pattern. Another pattern we see that matches tastes in food is that they change over time, just like our tastes in morality, with some things remaining the same for long periods but some changing pretty drastically and others involving minor tweaks. Asparagus was largely ignored for thousands of years, then used largely as ritual or medicine, becoming more of a food in the middle ages, and then became more popular in the modern times. All this despite the fact that asparagus is objectively awful. ;) Moreover, morality cannot avoid being subjective because it is, ultimately, an opinion that can only exist if there are subjects, and even couldn't be the case if there were no subjects at all. Even if it comes from _God_ it _remains_ subjective because God is a subject, too. *This common desire that we have to avoid suffering exists across all cultures and times and if it were not objective moral values and duties then could we even make the case that x is wrong and hold individuals accountable for their actions.* Clearly not true. We can hold people accountable for their actions regardless. In order to do so you simply need to sound convincing. That's all that means. We decided X is wrong, and this is demonstrable by the mere fact that _what_ X _is_ has changed over time, and _continues_ to change. Even what constitutes 'suffering' changes. Consider honor killings among Muslims. The idea that someone in your family is doing something socially awkward is considered the other family members 'suffering' to the point that it become valid to execute said family member... that's not a value we all hold, and it's not even one _Arabic_ people have always held. So even to say we all want X when X _itself_ can vary in terms of what it means makes it all subjective again. The only time X becomes, in any way, _objectively_ an issue is when it reduces our chances of surviving and reproducing _enough_ to end a culture due to dying out. *Interestingly, you bring up evolution but can't see how evolution gives us any reason for love that is unconditional/radical selfless love like from the example of Jesus/Buddha.* It's not that hard. We are social creatures, because for us that gave us a survival advantage. No one of us has to have every skill at every moment in order to survive, we can divide the work and get more done as a group than we can alone. In fact, at this point, we can't even _survive_ alone anymore, we _need_ other people or it's a near certainty we wouldn't live long enough to survive and reproduce. This requires us to trust each other. Such trust flourishes with kindness, and as there is variation in the system that is evolution the _degree_ of kindness will vary as well. Extremes of love, in certain contexts, has us ending up with people who are more willing to help and thus support the species as a whole, which _includes_ the members of the species exhibiting that degree of love. This, of course, sometimes backfires, but because when it works it works really well, we evolved to dislike those who cause it to backfire, since that would harm our own chances of reproduction. So yes, it accounts just fine for accepting people who are otherwise outcasts, the willingness to sacrifice oneself for neighbors, and so on and so forth. Having the willingness to do so means we live in a group where such might happen, improves trust, and allows us to accomplish more than if this wasn't the case. It also accounts for why we had outcasts in the first place, too, and continue to have them today, and always will. Both approaches have societal effects that will help us all survive as a group, thus encouraging us as a species to continue this cooperation compared to those groups that don't do it. This is also where our moral intuitions come from. Imagine a society in which you could randomly stab someone in the throat. There's no way to trust the person next to you, and so the ability to cooperate suffers, and thus so does the society. Such societies would fail or at least not achieve as much as societies that don't permit such things. *If truth is merely that which is accurate of reality then what about the problem of accessing reality given how our perceptions of reality and the ambiguity of what we mean by "reality" and how we make judgments about reality that are consistent with laws of logic.* We derived the laws of logic by extrapolating from what we observe with our flawed senses about reality. We live in a reality where it very much looks like something cannot be in two places at once. This led to the formation of the Law of Non-Contradiction. And yet in the last century we discovered quantum mechanics which models observations quite well and shows that a particle _can_ be in two places at once. We don't base reality on truth and truth on reality, we _just_ base truth on reality. It's unidirectional, not circular. We observe reality, and whatever reality is, that's what's true. We then make up rules (laws of logic, laws of nature) for our own use that describe the patterns that reality presents to us and state that a violation of them makes something not necessarily true, and potentially false. This has great utility, and has led us far because the patterns of the reality we're in are, largely, stable. If, however, we find a contradiction between 'truth' as we know it so far and reality, reality wins... always. We might initially reject the reality, think we are making a mistake, measuring wrong, etc, but eventually reality wins. This is exactly what happened with quantum mechanics. It was so irredeemably weird that those first working with it thought there was a mistake somewhere, or that it had to have some underlying classical causality, but over time tests of this showed that it didn't, and eventually what we thought of as 'true' prior to that _changed_ to match reality, not the other way around. If reality operated in a different way, and things with minds existed there, they'd formulate their own 'laws of logic' and so on based on that observed reality. For instance if we observed at a macroscopic scale something that was both A and not-A at the same time, we wouldn't have a law of non-contradiction because we would have examples of its inapplicability in some sense. Same thing with laws of nature. But in order to _overcome_ any of these laws, we need something demonstrable to do it. We can't just hand-wave and say 'well the laws of logic do not apply in this case just because that would allow this thing I am thinking about to make sense', otherwise we can't use any of it at all. Have a nice day!
How can you say there’s no objective morality? Rape isn’t objectively wrong? I agree we come from evolution, God set the parameters that guided it. How can you say love is just chemicals firing in the brain? Is that all we are? Where does truth come from? How can you say “you are wrong” and have that be true? In other words, how does that make sense? Truth exists, where does it come from? You didn’t disprove that truth wasn’t created or that there’s an origin to it, you just defined what it was like that posed a problem to Christians. Why are we here? Why are humans on the earth, what purpose is there? None? Then why do you care about anything? Why do you care if evil exists? Do we all come from nothing? Do we live for nothing? And when we die what happens? We go off into nothing? Well if so why do you care about the 9 year old that was just struck by a missile in Gaza? I’ve noticed that atheists tend to not, how I like to put it, “zoom out” enough. Yes humans come from evolution. What guided it? Just a set of parameters that guided it, not God. Well… what set those parameters? Where does gravity come from? Did something as intricate as gravity just pop into existence? That’s very difficult to believe. I think if you really zoomed out and tried to view reality from and external viewpoint rather than an internal, you’ll start to see how intentional everything actually is, and it will be extremely difficult to deny God’s existence.
I'm not sure how to make sense of your claims but here's one "We can't even define 'one', really. What's 'one' apple, for instance? It's an abstraction. We could just as easily have a mathematics where the base unit isn't 1 as we understand it now, but is pi instead. It'd make calculating curves, which are far more common in nature, vastly easier." So this would be easier to calculate? 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196442881097566593344612847564823378678316527120190914564856692346034861045432664821339360726024914127372458700660631558817488152092096282925409171536436789259036001133053054882046652138414695194151160943305727036575959195309218611738193261179310511854807446237996274956735188575272489122793818301194912983367336244065664308602139494639522473719070217986094370277053921717629317675238467481846766940513200056812714526356082778577134275778960917363717872146844090122495343014654958537105079227968925892354201995611212902196086403441815981362977477130996051870721134999999837297804995105973173281609631859502445945534690830264252230825334468503526193118817101000313783875288658753320838142061717766914730359825349042875546873115956286388235378759375195778185778053217122680661300192787661119590921642019893809525720106548586327886593615338182796823030195203530185296899577362259941389124972177528347913151557485724245415069595082953311686172785588907509838175463746493931925506040092770167113900984882401285836160356370766010471018194295559619894676783744944825537977472684710404753464620804668425906949129331367702898915210475216205.................................... You can't account for anything other than one as a unit and to have a unity. Two and two are four always exists in the same mode. Four contains two and two exists always in the same mode and two is not four. The union of the second with the first becomes the number 2. Numbers are not properties of objects like one apple but the concept that exists necessarily as one and not different ones or else you cant even have arithmetics if you tried to replace the number 1 with different symbols. 1 follows in a series of natural numbers after 0 and so on.. and natural numbers follows from these series
"...one plus one equals two..."
This depends on you defining each of the words 'one', 'plus', 'equals', and 'two' in specific ways. In other words it's a consequence of the definitions of the concepts behind them, but it isn't required. For instance 'one' doesn't exist, at all. It's an abstraction. All of math _is_ abstraction. As a result, math is more like a game we play with ourselves. It's based on unprovable axioms that we just accept outright as a starting point, not something we can show to be true, and the _rest_ of mathematics is merely working out the consequences of those rules we set up at the start.
The same goes for laws of logic. We find it useful to think about most things in those terms, but there _are_ other modes of thought that, within their own spheres, seem to function quite well in which the Law of Non-Contradiction, the one you put up there, doesn't actually hold.
"...there are objective moral values and duties..."
No, there aren't. There's just our common desire as the sorts of beings we are to want to avoid suffering. However it being common to us doesn't make it somehow objectively true.
"...there is an innate morality that is universal across all human culture..."
To the extent that there is, it contains very, very little, and almost nothing can be agreed upon 100%.
"...we seek happiness... and this is because of the natural law..."
No, it's a result of evolution. We take happiness most often in things that further our own existence and ability to procreate.
"...humans are not the creators of all truths..."
Truth doesn't need 'a creator'. Truth is merely that which is accurate of reality. Whatever reality is, that's what's true about it.
"...God is love..."
No, love is an electrochemical reaction happening in a functioning brain, just like every other emotion and thought, at least as far as is at all testable and reasonable to believe.
Have a nice day!
"This depends on you defining each of the words 'one', 'plus', 'equals', and 'two' in specific ways. In other words it's a consequence of the definitions of the concepts behind them, but it isn't required. For instance 'one' doesn't exist, at all. It's an abstraction. All of math is abstraction. As a result, math is more like a game we play with ourselves. It's based on unprovable axioms that we just accept outright as a starting point, not something we can show to be true, and the rest of mathematics is merely working out the consequences of those rules we set up at the start.
The same goes for laws of logic. We find it useful to think about most things in those terms, but there are other modes of thought that, within their own spheres, seem to function quite well in which the Law of Non-Contradiction, the one you put up there, doesn't actually hold."
I'm not sure what other definitions you could give for the words 'one', 'plus, 'equals', and 'two', and in what world or reality could one plus one equal something other than two. If math is something like a game how is it that math transcends language and culture that is enduring and permanent. We can actually show mathematics to be true not just by the definitions and axioms but with patterns in nature such as the Fibonacci sequence, Pi, the predictions and equations that is precise. If we can't show math to be true then what can we show to be true?
As for the law of non-contradiction A cannot be both A and not A at the same time. Again not sure what "other modes of thought" you are thinking of. In what other mode can "if A is true and A implies B then B is true" being true necessarily or 2+3=5 and not 4.89, a triangle has three sides, etc
"No, there aren't. There's just our common desire as the sorts of beings we are to want to avoid suffering. However, it being common to us doesn't make it somehow objectively true."
Agree that being in common doesn't make it objectively true but I would argue that moral disagreements presume objectivity because we're not arguing about things purely subjective like our preference for foods. This common desire that we have to avoid suffering exists across all cultures and times and if it were not objective moral values and duties then could we even make the case that x is wrong and hold individuals accountable for their actions.
"No, it's a result of evolution. We take happiness most often in things that further our own existence and ability to procreate."
"No, love is an electrochemical reaction happening in a functioning brain, just like every other emotion and thought, at least as far as is at all testable and reasonable to believe."
Interestingly, you bring up evolution but can't see how evolution gives us any reason for love that is unconditional/radical selfless love like from the example of Jesus/Buddha. Does evolution account for the people that they accepted into their circle who were regarded as outcasts? Seems like evolution cannot account for this kind of love that has transformed the lives of billions throughout history. Describing the physical processes in the brain the experience doesn't prove causation but correlation. Also, cannot see how reducing the experience of love or any subjective experience to electrical processes in the brain produces consciousness.
"Truth doesn't need 'a creator'. Truth is merely that which is accurate of reality. Whatever reality is, that's what's true about it."
If truth is merely that which is accurate of reality then what about the problem of accessing reality given how our perceptions of reality and the ambiguity of what we mean by "reality" and how we make judgments about reality that are consistent with laws of logic. If we judge reality by truth and truth by reality then it would be circular without an independent standard. How is it that mathematical and logical truths fit together with our physical reality that is consistent and not dependent on one's version of reality.
@@YemilSerret
*I'm not sure what other definitions you could give for the words 'one', 'plus, 'equals' and 'two'*
We can't even define 'one', really. What's 'one' apple, for instance? It's an abstraction. We could just as easily have a mathematics where the base unit isn't 1 as we understand it now, but is pi instead. It'd make calculating curves, which are _far_ more common in nature, _vastly_ easier.
*we can actually show mathematics to be true not just by the definitions with the predicates contained in the subject but with patterns nature such as the Fibonacci sequence, Pi, the predictions that we use with mathematics accurately describes our physical universe.*
The mathematics we have can be used as a description of nature, sure. But so can other maths, ones with different predicates. For instance, if 'pi' were the base unit, then you wouldn't need to calculate it, it'd just be standard. Instead you'd have to calculate what we call 1, and it'd be just as much 'a thing we can use to describe stuff'. We likely wouldn't have the Fibonacci sequence with such a start, true, but unless we start with such a predicate set and work out what _its_ consequences are for several thousand years the way we do with the set we actually use, there's no telling what other sequences we might come up with that could be useful. Maybe Einstein's field equations would be vastly easier and more elegant (since it's based on curves), and would make quantum gravity obviously some other calculation instead of the mystery it remains today. We can't tell because we don't work in those terms. And sure, things like why shells grow in the way they do would be more mysterious to us, but we'd just be trading one set of mysteries for another.
*Again not sure what "other modes of thought" you are thinking of.*
Paraconsistent logic.
*Agree that being in common doesn't make it objectively true but I would argue that moral disagreements presume objectivity because we're not arguing about things purely subjective like our preference for foods.*
Yes, we are arguing about something purely subjective. For instance, consider whether we have a subjective preference for apples or feces. That _is_ a subjective preference. We have a _much_ more diametrically opposing view on this, with a near universal preference among humans for one over the other, and most would say eating the second is 'wrong', on a nearly equally visceral level. Yet our reaction to between apples and carrots isn't nearly as strong. We get the same thing with morals. Some things we near universally prefer one thing over another, and in other areas we disagree less strongly. Exactly the same pattern.
Another pattern we see that matches tastes in food is that they change over time, just like our tastes in morality, with some things remaining the same for long periods but some changing pretty drastically and others involving minor tweaks. Asparagus was largely ignored for thousands of years, then used largely as ritual or medicine, becoming more of a food in the middle ages, and then became more popular in the modern times. All this despite the fact that asparagus is objectively awful. ;)
Moreover, morality cannot avoid being subjective because it is, ultimately, an opinion that can only exist if there are subjects, and even couldn't be the case if there were no subjects at all. Even if it comes from _God_ it _remains_ subjective because God is a subject, too.
*This common desire that we have to avoid suffering exists across all cultures and times and if it were not objective moral values and duties then could we even make the case that x is wrong and hold individuals accountable for their actions.*
Clearly not true. We can hold people accountable for their actions regardless. In order to do so you simply need to sound convincing. That's all that means. We decided X is wrong, and this is demonstrable by the mere fact that _what_ X _is_ has changed over time, and _continues_ to change. Even what constitutes 'suffering' changes. Consider honor killings among Muslims. The idea that someone in your family is doing something socially awkward is considered the other family members 'suffering' to the point that it become valid to execute said family member... that's not a value we all hold, and it's not even one _Arabic_ people have always held. So even to say we all want X when X _itself_ can vary in terms of what it means makes it all subjective again.
The only time X becomes, in any way, _objectively_ an issue is when it reduces our chances of surviving and reproducing _enough_ to end a culture due to dying out.
*Interestingly, you bring up evolution but can't see how evolution gives us any reason for love that is unconditional/radical selfless love like from the example of Jesus/Buddha.*
It's not that hard. We are social creatures, because for us that gave us a survival advantage. No one of us has to have every skill at every moment in order to survive, we can divide the work and get more done as a group than we can alone. In fact, at this point, we can't even _survive_ alone anymore, we _need_ other people or it's a near certainty we wouldn't live long enough to survive and reproduce.
This requires us to trust each other. Such trust flourishes with kindness, and as there is variation in the system that is evolution the _degree_ of kindness will vary as well. Extremes of love, in certain contexts, has us ending up with people who are more willing to help and thus support the species as a whole, which _includes_ the members of the species exhibiting that degree of love. This, of course, sometimes backfires, but because when it works it works really well, we evolved to dislike those who cause it to backfire, since that would harm our own chances of reproduction.
So yes, it accounts just fine for accepting people who are otherwise outcasts, the willingness to sacrifice oneself for neighbors, and so on and so forth. Having the willingness to do so means we live in a group where such might happen, improves trust, and allows us to accomplish more than if this wasn't the case. It also accounts for why we had outcasts in the first place, too, and continue to have them today, and always will. Both approaches have societal effects that will help us all survive as a group, thus encouraging us as a species to continue this cooperation compared to those groups that don't do it.
This is also where our moral intuitions come from. Imagine a society in which you could randomly stab someone in the throat. There's no way to trust the person next to you, and so the ability to cooperate suffers, and thus so does the society. Such societies would fail or at least not achieve as much as societies that don't permit such things.
*If truth is merely that which is accurate of reality then what about the problem of accessing reality given how our perceptions of reality and the ambiguity of what we mean by "reality" and how we make judgments about reality that are consistent with laws of logic.*
We derived the laws of logic by extrapolating from what we observe with our flawed senses about reality. We live in a reality where it very much looks like something cannot be in two places at once. This led to the formation of the Law of Non-Contradiction. And yet in the last century we discovered quantum mechanics which models observations quite well and shows that a particle _can_ be in two places at once.
We don't base reality on truth and truth on reality, we _just_ base truth on reality. It's unidirectional, not circular. We observe reality, and whatever reality is, that's what's true. We then make up rules (laws of logic, laws of nature) for our own use that describe the patterns that reality presents to us and state that a violation of them makes something not necessarily true, and potentially false. This has great utility, and has led us far because the patterns of the reality we're in are, largely, stable. If, however, we find a contradiction between 'truth' as we know it so far and reality, reality wins... always. We might initially reject the reality, think we are making a mistake, measuring wrong, etc, but eventually reality wins. This is exactly what happened with quantum mechanics. It was so irredeemably weird that those first working with it thought there was a mistake somewhere, or that it had to have some underlying classical causality, but over time tests of this showed that it didn't, and eventually what we thought of as 'true' prior to that _changed_ to match reality, not the other way around.
If reality operated in a different way, and things with minds existed there, they'd formulate their own 'laws of logic' and so on based on that observed reality. For instance if we observed at a macroscopic scale something that was both A and not-A at the same time, we wouldn't have a law of non-contradiction because we would have examples of its inapplicability in some sense. Same thing with laws of nature.
But in order to _overcome_ any of these laws, we need something demonstrable to do it. We can't just hand-wave and say 'well the laws of logic do not apply in this case just because that would allow this thing I am thinking about to make sense', otherwise we can't use any of it at all.
Have a nice day!
This makes negative amounts of sense.
How can you say there’s no objective morality? Rape isn’t objectively wrong? I agree we come from evolution, God set the parameters that guided it. How can you say love is just chemicals firing in the brain? Is that all we are? Where does truth come from? How can you say “you are wrong” and have that be true? In other words, how does that make sense? Truth exists, where does it come from? You didn’t disprove that truth wasn’t created or that there’s an origin to it, you just defined what it was like that posed a problem to Christians.
Why are we here? Why are humans on the earth, what purpose is there? None? Then why do you care about anything? Why do you care if evil exists? Do we all come from nothing? Do we live for nothing? And when we die what happens? We go off into nothing? Well if so why do you care about the 9 year old that was just struck by a missile in Gaza?
I’ve noticed that atheists tend to not, how I like to put it, “zoom out” enough. Yes humans come from evolution. What guided it? Just a set of parameters that guided it, not God. Well… what set those parameters? Where does gravity come from? Did something as intricate as gravity just pop into existence? That’s very difficult to believe. I think if you really zoomed out and tried to view reality from and external viewpoint rather than an internal, you’ll start to see how intentional everything actually is, and it will be extremely difficult to deny God’s existence.
I'm not sure how to make sense of your claims but here's one
"We can't even define 'one', really. What's 'one' apple, for instance? It's an abstraction. We could just as easily have a mathematics where the base unit isn't 1 as we understand it now, but is pi instead. It'd make calculating curves, which are far more common in nature, vastly easier."
So this would be easier to calculate?
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196442881097566593344612847564823378678316527120190914564856692346034861045432664821339360726024914127372458700660631558817488152092096282925409171536436789259036001133053054882046652138414695194151160943305727036575959195309218611738193261179310511854807446237996274956735188575272489122793818301194912983367336244065664308602139494639522473719070217986094370277053921717629317675238467481846766940513200056812714526356082778577134275778960917363717872146844090122495343014654958537105079227968925892354201995611212902196086403441815981362977477130996051870721134999999837297804995105973173281609631859502445945534690830264252230825334468503526193118817101000313783875288658753320838142061717766914730359825349042875546873115956286388235378759375195778185778053217122680661300192787661119590921642019893809525720106548586327886593615338182796823030195203530185296899577362259941389124972177528347913151557485724245415069595082953311686172785588907509838175463746493931925506040092770167113900984882401285836160356370766010471018194295559619894676783744944825537977472684710404753464620804668425906949129331367702898915210475216205....................................
You can't account for anything other than one as a unit and to have a unity. Two and two are four always exists in the same mode. Four contains two and two exists always in the same mode and two is not four. The union of the second with the first becomes the number 2. Numbers are not properties of objects like one apple but the concept that exists necessarily as one and not different ones or else you cant even have arithmetics if you tried to replace the number 1 with different symbols. 1 follows in a series of natural numbers after 0 and so on.. and natural numbers follows from these series