Our Response to Anti-Theism

[MarysLurker]

Emotions are physical and mental effects caused by physical, electrical and chemical changes within the body. As I said, we can do this artificially. If it were metaphysical we couldn’t.

Well, what caused those physical, electrical and chemical changes? You’ll say external stimuli. And I’ll say, what external stimuli? And you’ll reply, only those which you can perceive through the senses. And hence you will just beg the question of whether anything exists that is transcendental and yet perceptible to the senses through abstraction.

Are you ever going to answer the question, specifically as concerns pi?

And if you mention circles and diamters again, I’m calling a close on the discussion.

That sounds like a no. I win by default.

Alright OP, we’ve got a winning argument against materialism. Transcendental numbers disprove the core argument of atheism. Of course as you can see, that isn’t going to necessarily get someone to listen, but it will let you see if they’re willing to reconsider their position.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Emotions are physical and mental effects caused by physical, electrical and chemical changes within the body. As I said, we can do this artificially. If it were metaphysical we couldn’t.

Well, what caused those physical, electrical and chemical changes? You’ll say external stimuli.

No I won’t. There is nothing external to a chemical reaction that causes said chemical reaction. If you burn carbon there is no woo that causes that to happen. Maybe you think that there is. That it’s all metaphysical. Transcendental.

Physical, electrical and chemical changes just about sum up all the changes that affect us. Either you accept that these are natural events in themselves or you must claim that everything is metaphysical etc.

Where do you go with this?

 

[MarysLurker]

There is nothing external to a chemical reaction that causes said chemical reaction.

… Except whatever caused the material prompting the reaction coming together, which will therefore involve physics, therefore relativity, therefore also π. π also holds in quantum mechanics.

You can’t avoid it. π exists. π is immaterial and imperceptible to the senses except by abstraction into a perceptible estimate (3.14…) that is not π itself. Yet it has an effect on the material world. Things exist that are immaterial and directly affect the material world. I haven’t yet proven that Love is one of them but I certainly have proven that π is.

 

[Economist]

Yet it has an effect on the material world. Things exist that are immaterial and directly affect the material world.

There are only 4 basic forces, the strong and weak nucleonic forces, the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force (there is also a fifth hypothetical force, the Higgs force, but it has not been verified yet). Which one does the “pi” use to effect the physical reality, and how does it work? Does the “e” also have such a magical property? Does the “pi” have a different effect than the “e”? What about the "golden ratio: (sqrt(5) + 1 /2)? Do they make a plant grow faster (as a Miracle Gro)? Or allow a balloon lift a bigger weight? Or can they be used instead of some graphite rods to moderate fission in a nuclear reactor? Or use them instead of flour to bake bread?

Be as specific as you want to.

 

[MarysLurker]

There are only 4 basic forces

Major premise: The only things that have physical effects are the four basic forces
Minor premise: @Economist is not one of them
Conclusion: @Economist can’t exert a physical effect upon a keyboard and post on CAF

Uh… no. The major premise is wrong. You put up a straw man.

I never said that pi was a force. The forces do nothing unless they have both something to operate on and physical laws to govern how they operate.

No more fallacies. Can anyone answer the question about whether pi is transcendent as in nonsensible?

 

[Wozza]

Economist:

There are only 4 basic forces

Major premise: The only things that have physical effects are the four basic forces
Minor premise: @Economist is not one of them
Conclusion: @Economist can’t exert a physical effect upon a keyboard and post on CAF

Uh… no. The major premise is wrong. You put up a straw man.

I never said that pi was a force. The forces do nothing unless they have both something to operate on and physical laws to govern how they operate.

No more fallacies. Can anyone answer the question about whether pi is transcendent as in nonsensible?

Thanks, Mary. Your (name removed by moderator)ut has been invaluable.

‘And if you mention circles and diameters again, I’m calling a close on the discussion.’

I’m a man of my word.

 

[MarysLurker]

Blockquote

close on the discussion.

As they used to say on Saturday morning—That’s all, folks!

Now back to the OT.

But how can we get through to people who are set in believing that religion is evil or God cannot exist?

Virtually all atheists and anti-theists are materialists. The materialist denies the existence of any non-material entity, and therefore denies the existence of God because God is a non-material entity. The proof for their argument, they say, is science. Everything that exists can be proven with the scientific method and everything the scientific method has proven is material. Therefore, no non-material entities and no God, they say. When you’re dialoging with someone you need to speak their language, so you can make the argument from transcendentals that I just made.

Science actually proves the existence of non-material entities and thus disproves materialism. I put forth a transcendental number, π, as an example of a non-material entity known to science (and as shown above, required for science to even work). I proved π was non-material by showing that no one has actually observed it (its digits go on forever, hence transcendental), yet everyone knows it exists. Yet we can never directly observe it, only approximate it with abstraction (3.14…)

The only serious argument the interlocutors made was that all numbers are actually subjective creations of man, i.e., abstractions we made up to help us keep track of things. In other words, numbers have no objective existence; they are not mind-independent. That is easily disproven from science. Take for example c, the speed of light (as in E=mc^2). We did not make up the speed of light. We discovered it, the same way that we discovered π. The argument that a transcendental number like π is mind-independent is even stronger because no mind ever has or ever will fully grasp it.

Now, if materialism is false (which it is, because π exists), there exist non-material entities. You can just continue from there with proofs of God from philosophy and logic (Prime Mover, Contingency, etc.). It also dovetails nicely into Plato’s Theory of Forms—π is the Platonic Form of 3.14…, and 3.14… is just the shadow on the wall of the Cave. Without materialism, the anti-theist has no choice but to listen or to leave.

 

[Pattylt]

I’m not anti theist. I’m an agnostic and your pi story didn’t convince me of anything except that you think you’ve got a great gotcha to convince atheists of God.

Good luck with that. And perhaps a little less arrogance would take you a bit further than a woo hoo, I won. You completely lost me there. Sorry.

 

[MarysLurker]

I’m not anti theist. I’m an agnostic and your pi story didn’t convince me of anything except that you think you’ve got a great gotcha to convince atheists of God.

Good luck with that. And perhaps a little less arrogance would take you a bit further than a woo hoo, I won. You completely lost me there. Sorry.

That’s a Catch-22.

So if you dare to stand up to an anti-theist and give them a taste of their own medicine to disprove materialism, you’re an arrogant know-it-all with a “pi story.” If you don’t disprove materialism, then the atheist wins the argument because you’re a dumb Catholic with a “pi story.”

And that proves my point that no matter what you do, someone who does not want to be convinced will not be.

If you’re sincere, go back and read the thread from the beginning, and see who spiked the football and declared victory first. See who engaged in personal attacks and insults to the other person’s education and intelligence. It wasn’t me. But I don’t think that matters to you.

 

[Pattylt]

I don’t appreciate anyone declaring victory in the manner of spiking footballs or declaring

As they used to say on Saturday morning—That’s all, folks!

I read this discussion in bits and pieces. If others also were declaring victory then they were wrong to do so as well. I’m just here trying to understand the arguments! Obviously, I missed something crucial as I still don’t quite understand how pi proves the supernatural. It was a very interesting discussion until you declared victory. And by the way, I don’t completely discount the supernatural. I’m still trying to figure out how we would know we’ve seen it! My problem is not one of proof. Neither complete materialism nor supernatural has proof. I’m just going by probabilities and every supernatural claim so far seems to have failed at some point in the investigation.

Your pi explanation was an interesting thought experiment but I’m still not connecting it with a non material entity. This is probably a problem with my own intelligence. I’m just not connecting the dots. If anyone else can do so to help me out, I’d appreciate it!

 

[MarysLurker]

It was a very interesting discussion until you declared victory.

Well, if declaring victory is a turn-off for you, both @Wozza and I, ergo both sides, are guilty. If that’s your criterion, then apply it even-handedly. But as far as this topic goes, I have nothing more to add, and do not want to waste any more posts going off topic, so I’ll leave you alone and hope that others pick it up.

… wait, one more thing.

This is probably a problem with my own intelligence. I’m just not connecting the dots. If anyone else can do so to help me out, I’d appreciate it!

Don’t put yourself down like that. That’s a false humility. Nothing I said or did here is meant to make you feel like you can’t understand the topic or to demean you in any way. I hope you and other participants can maybe simplify or streamline the discussion.

 

[Pattylt]

If others also were declaring victory then they were wrong to do so as well.

@MarysLurker
I believe I just did.
If you’re willing, how does pi, as a non material entity, in any way explain a non material mind (God or others)? I’m sure you aren’t declaring that pi is an immaterial mind…it’s just an immaterial symbol for a mathematic equation. I fail to see the leap you are trying to make.

 

[MarysLurker]

an immaterial symbol

Well, if you want me still in here I’ll go on.

Ordinary numbers are immaterial symbols made by humans. Transcendental numbers are immaterial, but they are not symbols because they exist in nature. We discover them (the way Columbus discovered America or Einstein discovered relativity or Father Lemaitre discovered the Big Bang), we don’t make them. That’s why transcendental numbers don’t fit into our base-10 number system and why we can’t represent them fully with our symbols (our counting numbers).

Hope that helps.

P.S. your point about declaring victory is well taken; I’m linking it up into another topic here.

 

[Pattylt]

Ok. I understand that we discover these non material relationships? Entities?Symbols? That pi or the golden number or e exist in nature and we defined them mathematically. We are pattern seekers and we discover these patterns and give them names.

Now how do you relate that to the supernatural? Are they supernatural by themselves? Does pi interact with us or just provide information that we can use to solve equations? They aren’t intelligent by themselves, they are just a way to describe or solve other problems. So, how is this disproving materialism? They are used in a material way not a non material way aren’t they?

 

[MarysLurker]

The main point of arguing from transcendentals is to disprove materialism. An atheist has materialism as their reference point or framework (everything that exists is fully perceptible to the senses either directly or in a lab). They will not consider any evidence for God because God is immaterial and they’ve already decided that nothing immaterial exists. By showing them, within their own framework, that things exist that are not perceptible to the senses, you invite them to reconsider that framework. (A true agnostic, such as yourself, doesn’t necessarily hold to materialism, which is one reason why you might not have seen the relevance. I was out to disprove something you didn’t believe.)

Now, what’s the next step? The argument from transcendentals establishes two things: that things do exist that are immaterial (pi itself), and that these things can be indirectly observed and approximated by the senses (which is what we do when we do math involving pi. Since we can’t know pi, we estimate by making a symbol or abstraction for pi, a number that starts with 3.14…) From there you can proceed to the classical proofs for God, which you’re probably familiar with. I won’t list them all, but here are a few from Aquinas that are complimented by transcendentals:

• Argument from motion/causation: Causes need causes, like a train car needs to be pulled by another car in order to move. A caboose can be pulled by another caboose but you have to have some other car pulling that caboose. You can’t have an infinite regress (a train of just cabooses). At some point there has to be an engine that gives the other cars their motion. It’s like that with the chain of causation going all the way back to the Big Bang. Hawking and others argued that a quantum fluctuation could cause the Bang but then where did that energy come from? That argument just gives you another caboose. Further, general relativity holds that time began at the Bang, so the Bang itself needs a cause that is outside of time itself. “Prove that something can exist outside of time,” they’ll say. Well, pi does. Nothing within time caused it; pi existed before circles did.
• Argument from design: The complexity of the universe and the sheer improbability that humans would develop suggests that there was a plan at work. An atheist would say that the universe could randomly develop in the way it did and that we have no way to know how many universes there are; if you have a lot of possible universes you could win the lottery and get this one. In order to beat that argument, you need to prove that the universe contains something that proves intelligence. Transcendental numbers fit that bill. Carl Sagan (an agnostic) wrote a book called Contact that was about aliens who were researching a race of precursor beings who had hidden a signal in the many digits of pi. Well, in order to do that, the precursors would have had to have been prior to pi and therefore to time itself. Sagan’s book agrees and concludes that the precursors designed the universe. Well, exactly!

More to come…

 

[Neithan]

Interesting approach with transcendental numbers. This reminds me of the movie, π.

 

[Wozza]

Interesting approach with transcendental numbers. This reminds me of the movie, π.

The Life Of π, American π, apple π…it’s all π in the sky as I can see.

 

[MarysLurker]

The Life Of π, American π, apple π…it’s all π in the sky as I can see.

Despite our sparring in the boxing ring I’d be happy to have some π a la mode with you.

I was gonna get into Plato next but it’ll have to wait a bit.

 

[Economist]

The Life Of π, American π, apple π…it’s all π in the sky as I can see.

Let’s not forget paπa … a healthy fruit.

I was gonna get into Plato next but it’ll have to wait a bit.

Ahem… the first two letters are not “p” and “i” they are “P” and “L” so it is not “πato”… it is PLATO…

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

The Life Of π, American π, apple π…it’s all π in the sky as I can see.

Let’s not forget paπa … a healthy fruit.

Didn’t Popπ used to eat that? Ah, no. It was spinach.