Prove to me that 2+2 does not = 4

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So if an individual believes that

Their hand will not grow back after cutting it off..

Their hand will not burn if they stick it in the fire for ten minutes..

They can not fly if they jump out the window...

These beliefs make them delusional?

These beliefs are not tangible and do not exists as "Truths" in the real world?

One is unable to view these things in the real world?

Ush or Shaky..please explain.

Jesus said (and I am paraphrasing) If you had the faith of a mustered seed, you could move mountains. Please could someone get the correct quote out of the King James Bible and keep it in contacts.

So, I guess if you believe enough, then all these things can be done.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The passion for philosophy...may only serve...to foster a predominant inclination...of the natural temper….There is, however one species of philosophy which seems little liable to this inconvenience, and that because it strikes ... no disorderly passion of the human mind, nor can mingle itself with any natural affection or propensity; and that is the Academic or sceptical philosophy….It is surprising, therefore, that this philosophy, which in almost every instance must be harmless and innocent, should be the subject of so much groundless reproach and blame.
--David Hume, Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding

The worst speculative Sceptic ever I knew, was a much better Man than the best superstitious Devotee & Bigot.
--David Hume (Letter to Gilbert Elliot of Minto, March 10, 1751)

I guess...

BTW and yes I just went out and grabs some random quotes.

So Philosophical Sceptism has absolute arguments which support it? If the reasoning behind my statements is only relative..what is the basis behind that argument behind my reasoning? 😕

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So Philosophical Sceptism has absolute arguments which support it? If the reasoning behind my statements is only relative..what is the basis behind that argument behind my reasoning? 😕

Sorry, you have to slow down for me; I didn't get that last part.

What it sounds like to me is, you want to argue the point even if someone doesn’t care, or even partly agrees with you. Is that right.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Jesus said (and I am paraphrasing) If you had the faith of a mustered seed, you could move mountains. Please could someone get the correct quote out of the King James Bible and keep it in contacts.

So, I guess if you believe enough, then all these things can be done.

Yes..but Jesus also stated..

"What is impossible to man..is possible to God"

So who/what was Jesus implying that we have to have faith in?

Was he implying that by having faith in ourselves..we can do anything?

Or was he implying that by having faith in God's abilities..we can do anything?

Do you think Jesus believed that the truth was something that is just relative to man..or did he believe that the truth was something that is relative to God?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes..but Jesus also stated..

"What is impossible to man..is possible to God"

So who what was Jesus implying that we have faith in?

Was he implying that by having faith in ourselves..we can do anything?

Or was he implying that by having faith in God's abilities..we can do anything?

Is the truth something that is just relative to man..or is the truth only something that is relative to God?

There is no difference, I am God, or at least part of God. 😆 The only down side to this is, you are also God. There is a truth, but we cannot understand it. Thanks for the debate, and I wish you great happiness.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry, you have to slow down for me; I didn't get that last part.

What it sounds like to me is, you want to argue the point even if someone doesn’t care, or even partly agrees with you. Is that right.

Sorry let me clarify..I mis-typed. What I'm asking is this.

Ush pointed out earlier that the "reasoning" behind my statements could be questioned by one who believes in Philosophical Skepticism. My response to you/or him is what basis do you have to determine this particular argument as being true. You follow?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no difference, I am God, or at least part of God. 😆 The only down side to this is, you are also God. There is a truth, but we cannot understand it. Thanks for the debate, and I wish you great happiness.

Well, if we are all indeed God, then we should have the ability to understand all the mysteries of life..unfortunately..we do not. Good debating with you as well.

Prove to me that 2+2 does not = 4

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am a simple human and you are asking a big question.

I like the little trap you have discovered; how can I be absolutely sure that nothing can be absolutely proven? Nice word game, but that is all it is.

You haven't played words games until you've dealt with Adam's "sock experiment" about free will and God.

Originally posted by finti
need to prove that 4 is twice of two first 😈

That's kind of what I was getting at in my first response.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well, if we are all indeed God, then we should have the ability to understand all the mysteries of life..unfortunately..we do not. Good debating with you as well.

That is the true aspect of my faith. I am part of God and therefore can know the true nature of reality. In the Lotus Sutra Buddha says that only Buddha’s can understand the truth aspect of nature, but then continues and explains the ten aspects. Why did he bother, if we can’t understand? The point is, we are all connected and we live in the true nature of reality. But this has nothing to do with 2 + 2 = 4 and 2 + 2 = 4 is nothing more than a model we have made to understand one aspect of nature. Math relates to the true nature of the universe like a clock relates to time. We know that clocks do not control time, so, don’t assume that math controls reality.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Word game?

You haven't played words games until you've dealt with Adam's "sock experiment" about free will and God.

Sounds like fun. 😄

Well... Nice tricky question here.
It is safe to assume that 2+2=4 simply because we have done enough trials in the past to make an extrapolation into the future.
Now This doen't nessasarily have to hold true in the future, but we can pretty safely assume that this will always be the case, but what is stopping it from changing? Nothing. Why couldn't tommorow 2+2=fish?? Logically right now that seems impossible, but what if instantaniously our logic changed around by some cataclismic force. Some could call it an act of God, but I would disagree, just some cataclismic force. Then 2+2 could equal fish or anything. And for all we know this could have already happened and we couldn't know, what if 1 second ago the universe reformed and made 2+2=4 and just changed all our memories (our brains are simply molocules after all) to reflect this?
But we can say that this happening could be safely disregared, for agruments sake.
Still numbers are only placeholders. We have assigned these numbers to represent what we belive to be some value or thing backing them up, but there isn't numbers are all theroretical, as are names. if you say you have 2 oranges, 2 is just a discription of what you see in front of you, same as oranges. You use the word Orange to discrbe the round fruit in front of you. But fruit is just a way to discribe a bunch of things that grow on trees, and this can go on infinitly.
So by this argument the number 2 is a written representation of our theroy of objects existing to lend evidence to the representation of the number, and so the circle goes.
By this argument 2+2=4 is just more representation of some experiment, but like US currency there is nothing to back it up except faith. The faith that the equation works, and the faith that you can buy stuff with a slip of paper that's not backed up by gold or any sort of hard currency, all faith. And don't try to bring a faith=god argument because faith is simply a nessisesity for not going insane because it is impossible to justify everything.

There? good enough?

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Well... Nice tricky question here.
It is safe to assume that 2+2=4 simply because we have done enough trials in the past to make an extrapolation into the future.
Now This doen't nessasarily have to hold true in the future, but we can pretty safely assume that this will always be the case, but what is stopping it from changing? Nothing. Why couldn't tommorow 2+2=fish?? Logically right now that seems impossible, but what if instantaniously our logic changed around by some cataclismic force. Some could call it an act of God, but I would disagree, just some cataclismic force. Then 2+2 could equal fish or anything. And for all we know this could have already happened and we couldn't know, what if 1 second ago the universe reformed and made 2+2=4 and just changed all our memories (our brains are simply molocules after all) to reflect this?
But we can say that this happening could be safely disregared, for agruments sake.
Still numbers are only placeholders. We have assigned these numbers to represent what we belive to be some value or thing backing them up, but there isn't numbers are all theroretical, as are names. if you say you have 2 oranges, 2 is just a discription of what you see in front of you, same as oranges. You use the word Orange to discrbe the round fruit in front of you. But fruit is just a way to discribe a bunch of things that grow on trees, and this can go on infinitly.
So by this argument the number 2 is a written representation of our theroy of objects existing to lend evidence to the representation of the number, and so the circle goes.
By this argument 2+2=4 is just more representation of some experiment, but like US currency there is nothing to back it up except faith. The faith that the equation works, and the faith that you can buy stuff with a slip of paper that's not backed up by gold or any sort of hard currency, all faith. And don't try to bring a faith=god argument because faith is simply a nessisesity for not going insane because it is impossible to justify everything.

There? good enough?

I liked it. 😄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
What is the base argument that supports Philosophical Sceptism? Can anyone answer that?

The idea that things can be doubted. But if you want to point out that that itself can be doubted also, then feel free- but that only feeds into their position, which is that nothing you say can convince them of the existence of an absolute because you might be mistaken.

As for this bit:

"So if an individual believes that

Their hand will not grow back after cutting it off..

Their hand will not burn if they stick it in the fire for ten minutes..

They can not fly if they jump out the window...

These beliefs make them delusional?

These beliefs are not tangible and do not exist as "Truths" in the real world?"

Well, I'm not really talking in that area because my relatavist and/or sceptic (and I feel I should point out that I am neither) doesn't actually 'believe' any of the above, he is just saying he can never be truly, 100% certain that any of the above won't happen, and even if they do it and it doesn't happen, that might just be their perceptions at fault.

But the whole point is this- if you try and use logical reasoning or a philisophical position to try and refute relatavism, a relatavist has only to adopt a position of scepticism and then there is nothing you can really say or do that will successfully undermine them. They will simply hold the position that everything you say might be void so none of it will convince them of an absolute.

What tpt says above is indeed correct- as I said, Maths only has absolute truths because it assumes that its own system of logic is correct. That assumption is based on faith. But it is still spectacularly useless to doubt it. But it isn't really Maths- or by the same basic principles of rationality and cause and effect you mentioned in the Evolution thread- that is making such an assumption; these assumptions necessary are those taken by just about everybody about everything else you could not practically exist.

And in answer to yout original question, our relatavist would just say that it has not been established for certain that 2 + 2 = 4 in the first place.

Firstly, there are no absolute truths whatsoever, only conditional and relative arising.

Secondly, numeric value and their meanings only exist inside our minds. Even Einstein said that mathematics does not conform to reality and vice versa.

The meaning of numbers, as with everything else, is all subjective.

Nobody can proof an absolute, as such an act would subject the absolute in question.

This thread hurts my brain. 😑

wallbash

Originally posted by whobdamandog
What is the base argument that supports Philosophical Sceptism? Can anyone answer that?

Answer:

Originally posted by Usgarak
The idea that things can be doubted.

def:

Base

The fact, observation, or premise from which a reasoning process is begun.

The fundamental principle or underlying concept of a system or theory; a basis.

So in summary...

You've agreed that there is an "absolute" basis to "Philisophical Sceptism."

Math has truths..which can't be refuted.(this would make these truths absolute..)

So basically we're in agreement that "absolute truths" do exist within life. When you bring in the argument of "Philosphical Skepticism" and the reasoning behind my arguments..you are taking an "absolute" stance against them. You follow?

I'm glad we could have this discussion...😖mile:

But that so-called absolute idea can be doubted, as my entire post went on to say and you simply ignored.

So no, your logic is in total failure here. Scepticism is the practice that completely undermines what you say- it is a belief that simply refutes all you are trying to stand for, no matter how much you try and smugly smile about it.

The entirity of your post above, a sceptic will simply ay you could be wrong about.

You cannot establish the existance of absolutes in that way. Any means you use to try and do it might be doubted. It is a premise you cannot establish.

Why must we be tortured like this? 😑