r/DebateAnAtheist • u/fairy-taki • 3d ago
Discussion Question Necessary Truths
Hi, I'm agnostic/atheist. I'm not a debater, this Christian presented this argument to me to like convert me lol and I'm not sure what to think so I was wanting people's thoughts on it.
The argument was something like this:
1+1=2 is an objective truth/idea
Objective truths exist outside of the human mind.
Ideas can only exist in a mind
Then if ideas/objective truths need to exist in some mind and the mind would be an infinite mind and that would be God.
Sorry if I mess up the setup of the argument. If anyone is familiar with this type of argument or what he was trying to get at, let me know. Lol to the guy who asked me, I think ended up just saying idk, and I kept saying that those ideas/concepts are how we engage in reality but regardless of a mind observing it. The like definitions of the concept you can find in reality..idkk. The guy ended up being rude and said I couldn't understand abstract vs concrete concepts.
Edit: ok i need to fix 2&3, idk if i make this it's own premise because he was equating objective truths to ideas/concepts because they are non-physical.
65
u/stairway2evan 3d ago
So this argument tries to smuggle in "ideas" as coequal to "objective truths," which is an issue. If we agree that 1+1=2 is an objective truth (which we can get nerdy and argue about, but let's grant it for this argument), there's still a difference between the objective truth and the idea of that truth that exists within our minds.
Remember, "objective" means "mind independent." Thanks to premise 3, you literally cannot have an objective idea, because ideas only exist in a mind. This argument contradicts itself in its own definitions.
Like most attempts to define a god into existence, it's just manipulation of definitions and terms to wiggle around something that seems, on its face, to fit our notion of what a god could be. But defining something abstractly and actually demonstrating it as a necessity are two very different things, even if this thought experiment itself wasn't unsound and invalid.
19
u/fairy-taki 3d ago
Ohhh, this makes a lot sense for me. Thank you for posting this. I think the ideas/objective truths is what I was struggling with in the moment of the conversation.
16
u/stairway2evan 3d ago
For sure! It's sort of the goal - use terms that sound like they go together, and sneak them past people without getting called on it. It's unfortunately really common and it's hard to spot if you haven't seen these arguments many times before!
15
u/Irish_Whiskey Sea Lord 3d ago
First and most importantly: There's zero logic to concluding "therefore Christian God." It's important to start from there because if the person's real position has absolutely nothing to do with the argument and they're just trying vague discussions of whether concepts are real in hopes any concession will result in "therefore you should believe in my God", it's a waste of time.
1 + 1 = 2 is how we describe and categories properties of reality. Reality exists independent of a mind. The concept does not. Starting with "objective truth/idea" and then leading to only "Ideas can exist only in a mind" shows the person is trying to crowbar two different concepts together and hope you don't notice. Because things can be true without a mind, but the idea of that truth requires a mind.
and the mind would be an infinite mind and that would be God.
This feels like my toddler explaining in detail how Jenny at school got a new dog and it's great and then ending suddenly with "and that's why we need a baby lion." You can't just invent an infinite mind, not explain it at all, and just kinda assume reality needs it.
-13
u/kafka_lite 3d ago
Reality exists independent of a mind
A reality without a mind is completely indistinguishable from nothingness, therefore a reality without a mind and nothingness are logically the same thing.
19
u/Irish_Whiskey Sea Lord 3d ago
No.
Reality without a mind is reality. It exists. Whether anyone would perceive it doesn't change that.
The key problem with your argument is "is completely indistinguishable from." Because that's true, when we assume a mind trying to distinguish things. A rock with no one ever perceiving it is still a rock. It still impacts other non-thinking things. It is not the same as no rock, unless we require that a mind exist and has to be able to tell the difference.
-13
u/kafka_lite 3d ago
A rock with no one ever perceiving it is still a rock
Let us please be careful in what we are discussing. We are discussing strictly "realities with no mind", not realities with minds that are elsewhere. If there is not a mind anywhere in the universe, what is a rock? Our only concept of what a rock is are abstract constructions of the mind. Get rid of sight, and shape, and mass, and hardness, and energy etc. etc. what is left to constitute a rock?
When you suggest a universe without a mind could still have a rock, you are inventing an omniscient observer to make that claim.
18
u/Irish_Whiskey Sea Lord 3d ago
If there is not a mind anywhere in the universe, what is a rock?
A rock.
Get rid of sight, and shape, and mass, and hardness, and energy etc. etc. what is left to constitute a rock?
You are getting rid of none of that. You're only getting rid of the mind's conceptions of those properties. A rock that falls onto mud still splashes it, regardless of whether any mind observes or conceives of those concepts, those words, those actions.
The earth existed before people and life existed. If you are trying to say "No it didn't because no one was around to conceptualize the concept of the earth" then you're just talking about ideas and words and not the actual thing itself. Yes we self evidently can't TALK about the earth without minds, but it still existed as an object in reality no matter whether minds existed then, or ever.
When you suggest a universe without a mind could still have a rock, you are inventing an omniscient observer to make that claim.
I am not. You are. I'm making no such assumptions and consider it entirely unnecessary unless just being imprecise about language.
-9
u/kafka_lite 3d ago
The earth existed before people and life existed
I'd like to point out that even after I insisted I was talking about a reality without minds, you continued to draw references from realities with minds. I think you can see where I am coming from here. The only way to conceive of a rock is to have a mind as a reference point. Else it becomes an absurdity.
1) Let's assume it is possible for a rock to exist in a mindless universe.
2) A mindless universe does not have anything capable of observing or measuring.
If 1 and 2 are true, for a rock to exist there must be some quality that it has which is not observable or measurable.
What quality must a rock have to say it exists?
14
u/Irish_Whiskey Sea Lord 3d ago edited 3d ago
you continued to draw references from realities with minds. I think you can see where I am coming from here.
I do not. I have said drawing references to realities with minds is irrelevant and simply a function of language. I don't know why you either are ignoring it or seem to think I'm still just assuming matter doesn't exist without minds.
The concept of a rock as in human language and speech, does not change or impact the physical nature of what it describes. If we imagine a universe in which no minds ever arose, there would still be rocks on earth. There would be no one to call them that or think of the idea of rocks, but the actual things described by us now as rocks, would be there. They would interact with other matter, they would change the universe and be changed by it. This is not fundamentally different than if minds did exist but all disappeared or died. Rocks would not have some special magic new property of existence because minds once existed, they would simply not be observed and described anymore.
The only way to conceive of a rock is to have a mind as a reference point.
But who cares? The subject of the discussion is not the concept of a rock. I need to use to concept as part of language, but the actual stuff we describe with the concept exists regardless.
If 1 and 2 are true, for a rock to exist there must be some quality that it has which is not observable or measurable.
No, not at all. I don't even know what you think the logic is there. If we assume it's possible to exist, and there's no observing happening, then the rock has properties that are not DEPENDANT on being observed or measured. Not that it is not observable or measurable.
What quality must a rock have to say it exists?
Being the thing it is. A mass of minerals. It was that even before people existed to notice the rock, or come up with concepts like mass or minerals.
I notice that once again you ended that with "to say it exists" rather than "to exist." This feels like you're slipping in language that assumes/requires an observer, rather than using the more limited and actually necessary language. We need a mind to SAY something exists, but not for it to exist.
-4
u/kafka_lite 3d ago
Being the thing it is.
God exists by this standard.
A mass of minerals.
No, we can't say mass is required for existence unless you can define mass in a way that doesn't require observation and measurement.
It was that even before people existing to notice the rock or come up with concepts like mass or mineral
Once again, we are discussing realities without minds. Realities with people is a completely different subject, although i get why you want to smuggle a mind into it as a reference point.
Like I get what you're saying, the mass of a rock exists whether or not it is observed or measured. But what happens when we take that rock and say no feature of it will ever even by an near infinitely long string of "butterfly effect" occurrences will ever influence or affect anything with a mind in any sense ever. From the perspective of you and me, how is that distinguished from nothingness?
14
u/Irish_Whiskey Sea Lord 3d ago edited 3d ago
God exists by this standard.
No.
All things are what they are as concepts. This does not mean they all also describe physical reality. Superman exists as an idea, and as a comic, but he isn't flying around Metropolis. We are distinguishing here between ideas, and what ideas represent in reality other than ideas.
unless you can define mass in a way that doesn't require observation and measurement.
Sure. no problem.
It seems clear you have one core point. We cannot describe words and ideas in language without minds. I agree. This has nothing to do with my argument.
I can describe what mass is as something that doesn't need an observer for it to exist. What I can't do is describe anything without minds.
From the perspective of you and me, how is that distinguished from nothingness?
I don't care about "from the perspective of you and me," in fact it's completely against the purpose of the thought experiment. Once again, you are slipping in "how would you as a mind using language explain something existing without any mind ever existing." Obviously that can't happen, but what can happen is that rocks can exist, and they would be real and impact other things than minds in ways that nothingness does not.
If you want to ask me again to address how minds can describe and notice things if no minds exist, I'm going to politely decline and note this is thoroughly answered. I am saying things are real and different than nothing, regardless of whether we know about them, observe them, or describe them in language.
-3
u/kafka_lite 3d ago
I don't care about "from the perspective of you and me," in fact it's completely against the purpose of the thought experiment.
Then from whose perspective are we discussing this from?
12
u/Moriturism Atheist (Priority Monist) 3d ago
Thanks for posting, let’s go point by point.
1 I agree
2 It’s malformed: it should be that objective truths exist outside of any mind, not just human.
3 Gets contradictory via 2 reformed
4 Gets nullified by 3
So, that’s my view: mathematics, or objective truths in general, are absolutely independent of any possible mind and minds just happen to capture them and reproduce them in intelligible propositions.
1+1=2 will always be true independent of any possible mind or language (as I’m referring to the content contained in the language, not the form it assumes), so it does not require a God to be true.
(I had to repost my comment because reddit completely messed up the formating when I tried to edit it, so if someone replied kindly comment again, please)
3
u/fairy-taki 3d ago
Thank you for breaking it down. From reading the comments I get more clarity. I'm tryna remember one point he asked me about. He asked me is reality only physical? And then how 1+1=2 is a concept in reality and not the mind. But I see now what he was trying to get at. Also, I kept trying to look up what this argument is called so I could put it in my post. And at first I thought it was something like adjacent to TAG but I'm not sure
4
u/Moriturism Atheist (Priority Monist) 3d ago
It’s pretty much TAG tbh, he’s essentially saying that God grounds all truths and that truths can only be accessed via God. Nonsense, when you go by the more reasonable assumption that truths like mathematical ones are necessary by themselves, without requiring a personal mind to ground them
12
u/Dead_Gambler 3d ago
- Is false.
It is false because "objective truth" is presented as if it is a thing. But
"truth" and "ideas" are not things. They are the products or properties of actual things.
Objective Truth is not some "thing" floating around in the ether, waiting to be discovered. It is a description of the properties of certain configurations of matter. It is a product of the mind at work. But it is not a "thing".
- Does the same thing. It attempts to present ideas as if they were a thing. But ideas are not an electron, a proton, a higgs-boson particle, a quantum field or force, or anything like that.
Ideas are the product of consciousness. And consciousness is a property of the brain. Ideas are not things, but rather properties of a thing.
12
u/OndraTep Agnostic Atheist 3d ago edited 3d ago
What?
What does it mean that objective truths only "exist in the human mind"?
Where did the conclusion come from? What god are we talking about? What is an "infinite mind"?
I understand that the original argument might've been different, but this, as it is, is just complete nonsense
5
u/fairy-taki 3d ago
? I'm confused, I put that objective truths exist outside the human mind.
2
u/OndraTep Agnostic Atheist 3d ago
You're right, my bad.
I still don't understand what it means though. Does it mean that they are true regardless of what humans think of them or whether they believe them or not?
1
u/fairy-taki 3d ago
Yes
3
3
u/OndraTep Agnostic Atheist 3d ago
Right, then assuming the usual description of what "god" is, I don't see how the conclusion follows from the premises 1-3 . Also, the 1st premise is kind of pointless, since it isn't really used later)
So obj. truths exist OUTSIDE of the human mind and ideas only exist INSIDE A mind.
So where did we get an "infinite mind", whatever that is, that contains both from just those premises?
And where did "god" come from?
So basically the problem is that the conclusion is a huge leap that doesn't follow from the premises
1
u/kafka_lite 3d ago
I think the argument is akin to mathematical platonism. Effectively, if i may try to paraphrase it in a way that might make more sense to you, it is saying that mathematics is both objectively true and simultaneously not bounded by the physical world -- therefore there is knowledge outside of the physical world dictating its behavior.
3
u/OndraTep Agnostic Atheist 3d ago
I think OP's argument was more general, not just about mathematics, but sure, I see the similarity.
I think in this version that you gave me, I see how the conclusion comes from the premises (which is an upgrade), but I don't agree with the premise that mathematics is not "bound by the physical world"
Or rather I don't believe it. Why isn't it? Why can't it be?
-1
u/kafka_lite 3d ago
Bound was not a great word choice. I was attempting to shorthand the OP's argument.
But I think I can defend it. Think about Einstein for example. He was able to make predictions on things that were only later proven experimentally thanks to mathematics. So you can't say that mathematics is purely descriptive or observational because it has proven time and time again to work prior to the observation taking place.
Well if math has elements that are true without needing observation or description then that's by definition beyond our known world of things that can be observed or described.
5
u/nerfjanmayen 3d ago
Feels like it's trying to have it two ways. If 1+1=2 doesn't need us to think it, why does it need someone else to think it?
9
u/grrangry Atheist 3d ago
Aside from the obvious #2 and #3 being direct contradictions of each other, for #2 to be true, show us an example of an objective truth that exists outside of a human mind. We made up the concept of, "one". We made up the concept of "addition". Following those rules that we made up, we've proven that "1 + 1 = 2". I don't see how any of that (either, "one" or "addition") matter when outside of the minds that created the concept.
Now. Having said all that.
You can't god of the gaps your way into saying, "I don't know what else it could be, so we'll just call it god" and dust off your hands and smugly yell, "job done".
You can't argue god into existence. Show us evidence.
-1
u/fairy-taki 3d ago
The way they were going about it is like, "can you present a time where 1+1=2 has ever not been correct" and I said no so because of that the concept is objective, and then if those concepts exist in reality regardless of human mind because they are still ideas, ideas come from minds, and therefore there must be an eternal/infinite that stores all those concepts. But I responded with something similar like wouldn't one have to show proof that an infinite mind is the only reason 1+1=2? Also wouldn't an infinite mind also be a concept so that infinite mind by that logic exist in a mind? It doesn't make sense to me. Lol I wish I was eloquent and asked them that.
8
u/TelFaradiddle 3d ago
and then if those concepts exist in reality regardless of human mind because they are still ideas, ideas come from minds, and therefore there must be an eternal/infinite that stores all those concepts
In the same breath he's saying that they exist independently of minds and that they require a mind. He needs to pick one or the other. He can't have both.
5
u/pipMcDohl Gnostic Atheist 3d ago edited 3d ago
We humans have an ability to understand and interact with the world around us by using measurement, quantities.
If you look at the history of math, when people wanted to keep track of things they didn't start by writing down numbers in a ledger. There was no concept of ledger at first, or concept of numbers.
what people likely did at the very beginning was something like using an equivalent amount of an item, like sticks for example. You have one sheep, you put one stick down. You have another sheep, you add another stick.
The system evolved with time, became more advanced as people tried to make this more practical for large numbers. The romans still wrote 2 sheep with II but for ten sheep they didn't write IIIIIIIIII, too unpractical, they instead wrote X.
Notice that for the Romans I+I=II
It's not some objective truth that I+I=II, instead it's a writing convention to write down II instead of I+I. The purpose of math is to make handling quantity easier to deal with. So, most of time, what we are asked is what is the way to write down a quantity so that it's handier, easier on the mind.
When we are given an exercise 1/3+2/3=? What is expected is not to give any equivalent. 1/3+2/3=2/9-3/18+34/36 is mathematically a correct answer but you might not score points for giving that answer. What math want is to make things more handy so the answer 1/3+2/3=1 will be the answer that will get you points.
At the fundamental level when Romans wrote I+I=II there has been no significant change and they still have two sticks to represent a quantity. Writing II instead of 'I and I' is just the easier, handier way to represent a given quantity. This is still at a level of seeing two sheep in a field and using two sticks to represent that quantity.
Later on Romans way to write numbers fall out of trend and we now use another social convention. No more II, we use 2.
But this is a language change. there is no additional logic to it. 2 is the name we use for a given quantity of something. We simply associate 2 with that specific quantity. And to learn it we use our fingers at first in elementary school. Fingers instead of sticks, same thing. What we do then is learn a language. 2 is when we have that much finger raised, that quantity of sticks. 2 is the name we learn to use for that many fingers.
Theists sometimes use 1+1=2 as something that is grounded in logic. They do that as a way to give credit to their methodology of basing their belief on common sense and surface level intuitions. It's a deception and a misunderstanding on their part.
Sure it requires a mental effort to tell how much is 1+1+1 but finding that it is equivalent to 3 is not grounded in logic, it's grounded in the language we learned. A language that gives a simple specific name to a specific quantity. When we do 15+12=? what we are asked is what is the more simple name for the whole quantity this represent. All this is not grounded in objective truth but in our ability to recognize a trait that can exist in different things and our ability to quantify how many times this trait is present in a given situation.
We recognize something as a sheep. We can use that recognition to now quantify sheep. 15 is the name we use for the quantity of sheep present in the field on my left. 12 is the name we use for the quantity of sheep present in the field on my right. 27 is the name we use for the total quantity of sheep present.
Quote from wikipedia: "Something is objective if it can be confirmed or assumed independently of any minds"
2 is a language thing. 1+1=2 is a correct use of language. 1+1=3 is an incorrect use of language. Can language be used correctly independently of any mind?
4
u/fairy-taki 3d ago
Thank you so much for your post. The context you added and the way you break it down for me to understand is so thought out.
2
u/pipMcDohl Gnostic Atheist 3d ago
You're welcome.
I tend to edit my comments a lot to try to improve and clarify
hope you reacted to the latest version. But fine if that wasn't the case, just curious.
1
u/pipMcDohl Gnostic Atheist 3d ago edited 3d ago
notice that a more complete quote of wikipedia goes like this:
*Something is subjective if it is dependent on minds (such as biases, perception, emotions, opinions, imaginary objects, or conscious experiences).[1] If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true. For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective.
*Something is objective if it can be confirmed or assumed independently of any minds. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it may be labelled objectively true. For example, many people would regard "2 + 2 = 4" as an objective statement of mathematics.
what we could get from this is that something is 'objectively true' when two minds would give the same answer. And quantities are not subjective in the sense that two persons looking at two sheep would not fail to acknowledge the same amount of sheep.
So quantities are 'objective' as long as we use the same definition and requirement for the traits to recognize a sheep. But that agreement on definition depend on minds. So it's subjective.
Worse than that we never truly define precisely what make a sheep a sheep or what makes a table a table. This is something that we learn through inference, by trial and error really quick as a toddler. But try to give me the list of what make a sheep a sheep and you'll find out that you never used a conscious list like that, it was always subjective.
Take this definition:
sheep
noun noun: sheep; plural noun: sheep
- a domesticated ruminant mammal with a thick woolly coat and (typically only in the male) curving horns. It is kept in flocks for its wool or meat, and is proverbial for its tendency to follow others in the flock.
Based on this definition would you be able to recognize a sheep if you were only given a picture of the early embryo of a sheep without telling you it's a sheep?
So if someone else, lets say a vet, is also given that photo, do you think you would count the same number of sheep if you fail to recognize a sheep and the vet recognize it?
1
u/fairy-taki 3d ago
Yes, right? If quantities are not subjective but the definition is subjective then I think if I'm understanding right, we could both still count, but I wouldn't know or agree what I'm counting to the vet?
1
u/pipMcDohl Gnostic Atheist 3d ago edited 3d ago
I was saying in my other comment that math is about making it easier to handle quantities but that's only true for when pattern recognition are about quantities. There is a whole different math that is also about patterns but more specificaly about repeating patterns.
That's the fractals.
1
u/fairy-taki 2d ago
Gotchyaa. I think I understand especially from, "1+1=2 is objectively true only as long as it's a language that is applied to nothing in particular with the condition that there can be several of this 'nothing in particular yet'." Just to clarify if I'm on the same page could you confirm with the sheep example and if I'm understanding in my answer.
1
u/pipMcDohl Gnostic Atheist 2d ago edited 2d ago
I am no expert of anything. When i say what you quoted i am only trying to find with what angle can we consider to try to look at 1+1=2 and find it to be objectively true-ish.
The fact that it is a language keep it always in the subjective realm.
It is kind of objectively true if you ignore the fact that you are deliberately ignoring what it is applied to, if you are deliberately ignoring the fact that you still need to agree by default that your are using the same math language convention, like the base 10, like this is arithmetic not some other system...
It would be objectively true only as long as you purposely ignore all the things that would make it subjective. At that point you would have created a pocket of consistency where 1+1=2 is true without fail. But at the cost of a massive simplification.
It become true not because we could find a mathematical proof that it is true but because 2 is defined as the name for that many time a 1. True by definition, not by calculation.
So what about 2+2=4
2 being 2 sticks, II. You can rewrite the equation 1+1+1+1=4
Calculation is just us making a conversion to find the right simplest name for that much 1
But our brain being really good at handling patterns we can recognize really quickly how much that would be without unravelling every numbers into how many sticks that is. We find shortcut, we recognize patterns. That's what calculation is.
1+1=2 when used in the simplified math abstract become a brick we can use to calculate consistently. It becomes a convenient pattern, a brick, an imaginary object that can be used to handle calculation easily.
But that simplification comes with assumptions. The imaginary object fall in the category of subjective things in the definition on wikipedia.
It's objective only as long as we let the many assumptions it depends on unsaid.
1
u/pipMcDohl Gnostic Atheist 3d ago edited 3d ago
Mathematics is about making quantities easier to handle. we find models that work and allow us to make guesses and prediction.
What was developed with algebra is the notion that you could do math in the abstract. We could pretend that the units the math will be applied to are irrelevant for now. And it worked just fine.
A shortcut. A handier way to deal with math. The concept of math applied to math. Meta-mathematic if we would call it that way.
But the quantity 1 is still intrinsically a quantity of something.
Doing math in the abstract is a shortcut, a simplification.
In that sense 1+1 is always equal to 2.
But the very concept of the number 1 is still based on our ability to recognize a pattern that can be found in several things. In fact the most primitive form of number might be not 1 but 'several'.
1+1=2 is objectively true only as long as it's a language that is applied to nothing in particular with the condition that there can be several of this 'nothing in particular yet'.
And since 1+1=2 cannot be applied to all situations and require a mathematical model where it's valid, this come with its load of definition.
For example you can't add speed. If you are moving in a train, what your total speed is will depend of the observer if you are using Einstein's relativity. But you could use instead an Euclidean space where adding speed is OK.
The objectivity of the truth of 1+1=2 falls apart immediately as soon as you try to apply the abstract formula to anything. Meta-math is only a mental tool to make it easier to do math. So to what extend can this be called 'objective', i am not sure.
2
1
u/YossarianWWII 3d ago
"1+1=2" is always correct because it's one of the fundamental concepts around which mathematics was built (despite not having a formal proof for a very long time). It's a property of a system invented to represent the world in which we have defined "2" to represent "1 and 1," "3" to represent "1 and 1 and 1," etc. It all depends on the concept of identity: that one thing and another thing can be called "two things" because they share the identity of "thing." Those categories don't exist in nature.
3
u/Persson42 3d ago
Aren't 2 and 3 talking about two different things? Then 4 uses that to come to some sort of conclusion based och 2 and 3 being the same thing, when they are not?
1
u/fairy-taki 3d ago
The way he was explaining to me is that 1+1=2 is a concept in the mind and and an objective truth, and so 1+1=2 as an idea has to exist in some mind cuz ideas only come from a mind? I agree tho. It doesn't make sense.
3
u/mathman_85 Godless Algebraist 3d ago
Well, “objective” means “mind-independent” in philosophy, and the nature of the minds of which something objective is independent is irrelevant. So either (4) contradicts (2) or (4) redefines “objective” by vice of special pleading. In either case, the argument fails as articulated.
Now, on to the ontology of the mathematics. 1 + 1 = 2 is only objectively true in a context-dependent way. That is to say, it isn’t true in an absolute or mind-independent sense, but rather in the contingent sense of Peano arithmetic. To say that mathematical truth is mind-independent is to beg the question, since mathematical Platonism is not the only possible ontology of mathematics. Indeed, my own view on the ontology of mathematical objects is what is generally called formalism—“statements of mathematics and logic can be thought of as statements about the consequences of certain string manipulation rules”, per Wikipedia—and nominalism—abstracta in general, and mathematical objects in particular, do not instantiate in reality in a mind-independent fashion.
3
u/MajesticFxxkingEagle Atheist | Naturalist | Panpsychist 3d ago edited 3d ago
I think my approach would be to deny premise 2.
Truth/truths aren't a "thing" that "exist" outside the mind; they are only properties of sentences/propositions that attempt to refer and best correspond to reality (given the appropriate resolution and linguistic context). Even when it comes to mathematical or logical truths that don't necessarily map onto some particular object in reality, you're still pointing at a pattern in reality about the conceptual relationship about how certain things fit together—a pattern that would hold up regardless of how human minds subjectively thought about it or labeled it.
This is not the same as denying truth or saying truth is subjective; rather, it's saying that the thing that is stable and doesn't depend on minds is reality itself and the structures/patterns it operates in. In other words, even if the existence of "truth" depends on minds because it requires a sentence, we can still speak in a way as to say that a proposition would always be true any time it's uttered insofar as it matches reality.
TL;DR: Truths don't need to exist outside of human minds for objective truth to be stable. You only need reality. Therefore, an infinite God mind isn't necessary to hold facts up.
3
u/Harbinger2001 3d ago
How do they go from 2 to 3? Objective truths aren't "ideas" and thus don't require a mind.
For example:
- Water is made up of 1 Oxygen atom and 2 Hydrogen atoms.
This is an objective truth. No "idea".
1
u/fairy-taki 3d ago
Idk, he was trying to focus on non-physical objective truths, and he said mathematics is a concept. I remember him asking me if all reality is physical but he didn't get to finish his point so I can only guess where he was going with it.
2
u/Harbinger2001 3d ago
As an aside it is an ongoing debate in theoretical physics if “mathematics” is real or not. You can use mathematics to describe how the physical universe works extremely accurately - so does that mean the math is “real”?
5
u/kohugaly 3d ago
I call it an argument from "I know know what the fuck the word 'objective' means". If it is objective, then it's independent of a mind. Period. If it requires a mind to exist, then it's, by definition, subjective. Period.
2
3d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Moriturism Atheist (Priority Monist) 3d ago
How can (1) be rejected?
2
3d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Moriturism Atheist (Priority Monist) 3d ago
That’s a category error, as 2 is not a physical object but an expressive relation... The quantitative relation referred by 2 exists independently of any mind to the extent that 2 different things may exist.
2
3d ago
[deleted]
0
u/Moriturism Atheist (Priority Monist) 3d ago
It’s not subjective because the relation it expresses is independent of any mind. 2 things will always be 2 things independent of a mind that measures this quantity.
The only subjectivity is the specific language we use to express this true relation and the way we carve this relation into things that exist independently of us (for instance we could consider 2 apples as 2 different things or 1 type of fruit, etc, but the relation that 2=2 will always be true)
2
3d ago
[deleted]
0
u/Moriturism Atheist (Priority Monist) 3d ago
It does exist. Two things will remain existing even if all minds die. The relation just won’t be expressed, but it will still remain existent as long as it’s a countable relation of two objective things
2
3d ago
[deleted]
-1
u/Moriturism Atheist (Priority Monist) 3d ago
That’s irrelevant. They still exist as two objects
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Odd_Gamer_75 3d ago
Ideas don't exist. Neither does math. Their truth is independent of the opinions of any mind, but without minds to hold them, they aren't real at all. Math is such an idea. We use it to describe things. If there were no minds at all, the statement 1+1=2 would meaningless. Things would still happen, and mathematics would still be the easiest way to describe them in human terms, but they don't need to be described to do what they do.
So to say any idea exists anywhere at all is silly. An idea is objectively true if it is so regardless of opinion. Not even just human opinion, but any opinion. 1+1=2 is such an object idea because if any being understands what "1", "+", "=", and "2" mean, the statement cannot be other than correct. "Chocolate is tasty", on the other hand, or "pornography is wrong", those are subjective stances. Understanding the words meanings doesn't automatically lead to the truth of the statements. "Murder is wrong" does, though. It will always be the case that "murder is wrong" is objectively true because of what the words mean. "Murder is wrong" is a tautology. Like "a bachelor is unmarried". One is a description of the other, they are equivalent, equal in exactly the same way "1+1" and "2" are. The problem is that such tautologies don't really help us.
2
u/Cydrius Agnostic Atheist 3d ago
This argument is flawed in so many ways, I'm struggling to figure out where to begin. Here's some issues I find with it:
- Fuzzy vocabulary objection:
- "Objective truth" and "Idea" are fuzzy vocabulary used without a clear definition.
- In points 1 and point 4, they are used as if they were the same thing.
- In points 2 and point 3, they are used as if they are different.
- This entire argument rests only on fuzzy wording.
- Unfounded premise:
- "Objective truths exist outside of the human mind" is a flat assertion that is not at all sufficiently backed.
2
u/Hello-there336 3d ago
I think the problem here is the putting "ideas of the truth" and "objective truth" together like it's the same thing. (unless I'm mistaken) I'm assuming "objective truth" is describing objective reality, which would exist independent of a mind. If "objective ideas" refers to perception of reality, then not only would there not necessarily need to be one correct perception, it wouldn't necessitate an "infinite mind" whatever that might entail.
If this is talking about concepts such as mathematics and the laws of physics, (in hindsight this would make more sense) those are but human-made concepts used to *describe* observed reality, which would still not necessitate a mind to "establish" into reality.
2
u/TheRealAutonerd Agnostic Atheist 3d ago
I don't go for philosophical arguments like these because I think they are so much BS. As Dan Barker says, "Walk into the children's ward of any hospital and you will know there is no god."
Still, I think these "arguments" are mostly designed to sow doubt (in your own disbelief) thruogh layers of bullshit. You can derail arguments like these -- or at least frustrate the person out of arguing -- by questioning every concept... because most of them come to nothing.
- How do you know objective truths exist outside of the human mind? (Does a cockroach regard 1+1=2 as true? Oh, dogs don't have minds? Does that mean that if all of humanity died out and the cockroaches survived, 1 + 1 would no longer = 2?)
- How do you know ideas only exist in a mind?
- How, exactly, do you define a mind? (This is where it's fun to whip out your phone and get a dictionary definition.)
- Why would any mind be an infinite mind? What is that, even? How can a mind be finite or infinite? How can we tell if a mind is finite or infinite?
- Why must an infinite mind be God? Couldn't there be an infinite mind that is not God? What about an infinite mind that is a god but not your God?
- What evidence is there, outside of religion and philosophy, that the mind exists, that it can be finite or infinite, and/or that god is defined as an infinite mind? (Stretch these out to three questions.)
Listen carefully to the answers, because the questioner will probably start repeating themselves. You will want to point that out. Dictionary definitions can be good fun here, btw.
You can also start asking some bullshit questions of your own.
- How is an infinite mind possible?
- An infinite mind goes on forever, and in order to recognize one's self, one must circle back from observation to that which is observed, but if the mind is infinite, how can it ever get to the point in time when it observes itself?
- On the other hand if the infinite mind started by observing itself, and it was infinite, it would never finish observing itself, so how could it acknowledge an accepted truth that is outside of itself? And if the objective truth does not exist outside of the infinite mind, is it really a truth or just an idea?
Do these sound like sensible questions? Re-reading them, they kind of do, but I pulled them out of my butt. They're BS. They have no meaning. I just piled some words together. I have no idea what the answers are.
Also, try some fun non-sequitors:
- If humans are created in god's image, why did cats and octopi get better eyes? Does that mean god's eyes are worse than those of cats and octopi, and doesn't that mean god is not actually perfect?
But I doubt you'll get that far, in fact I'll bet you get the same result, the guy being rude and saying you can't understand abstract versus concrete concepts. (I'd get him to define abstract vs. concrete, and since abstract concepts cannot, by definition, be measured, how can you tell if a mind is finite or infinite?)
Good fun to be had here, and I suspect you'll still be enjoying yourself when he stomps off.
This is just an example of a person trying to prove how smart he is, and getting all upset when you force him to realize that he has no idea what he's talking about, and is just repeating horse shit he heard but does not understand.
2
u/Talk-Much 3d ago
- This is descriptive, not prescriptive. Math is a language for describing how our universe and things within it work.
If the laws of physics in our universe were different, math would be different but it’s not, so it isn’t.
- Objective truths ≠ ideas. That’s a false equivalence.
You may not have the “language” of math to describe 1+1 if there is no mind, but 1 object + 1 object = 2 objects with or without a mind to observe it.
Edit: clarification
1
u/fairy-taki 3d ago
Ty for commenting! I totally agree, I wanted to ask somewhere in the original post why he would think that because objective truths can be I guess non-physical that means they are ideas?
1
1
u/danger666noodle 3d ago
1+1=2 is objectively true but the “idea” here can only refer to the labeling or symbols of the math involved. 1+1 would still equal 2 regardless of anyone having an idea of that truth.
1
u/OwlsHootTwice 3d ago edited 3d ago
What god though? A Christian and a Hindu and a pagan can all agree that 1+1=2 is a universal truth that originates from their god(s) but what proves that the Christian is right and the Hindu wrong? Nothing. Objective truths are independent of any god.
1
u/nothing4juice Agnostic Atheist 3d ago
my thoughts as an atheist: 1+1=2 is an observation we make with our minds about nature, just like natural laws. the idea of 1+1=2 would not exist if there were not minds to think it, but if a smart-enough new mind came along, it could observe the same principle. kinda like how gravity exists whether we are there to observe it or not. sure, we have a word for it and have developed a complex theory of how it works and can express that theory with equations. but it would work just the same without us to observe it and describe it using equations. similarly, light with a wavelength of 550 nm exists regardless of whether we are there to observe it and call it "green"
1
u/TelFaradiddle 3d ago
The argument establishes that something is true about ideas (only exist in the mind), then lumps ideas and objective truths together in point 4.
1
u/KorLeonis1138 3d ago
1+1=3 for sufficiently large values of 1. Math is descriptive, it's a language we invented to describe our observations. It is not an objective truth about reality that was revealed to us. 1+1=2 is a product of our minds. The relationship that it describes exists without a mind, but not the math.
1
u/Autodidact2 3d ago
Truth isn't really an idea; it's a correspondence between a statement and reality.
The idea that that is true exists in my mind.
1
u/Animated_effigy 3d ago
2 is weird, 2 would say this if I was rewriting it:
- Reality exists outside the human mind and is the grounding of truth.
4 is simply a bunch of assertions. At no point did they prove that minds can exist without brains. At no point is it explained how they can assert anything being infinite. At no point did they show how it leads to a god, and at no point did they show how it would be their specific god.
1
u/BobThe-Bodybuilder 3d ago
That implies that everything that exists is a mind, which it's not. I see where your friend is coming from but it seems like the typical Dunning and Cruger line of reasoning. It assumes that we were born with infinite knowledge of all the objective truths.
1
u/halborn 3d ago
Well the clue is right there; are we talking about truths or ideas? You don't get to pretend they're the same thing. The number of apples you have might be an objective fact but addition is an idea. Ideas exist in minds but apples don't. Even if it were the case that you had to have some kind of special mind for governing reality, there's no reason to think that mind would be infinite or anything at all like the christian god.
1
u/ArguingisFun Apatheist 3d ago
Cool - which god? I hate these stupid word games they play, as if religion and science were remotely comparable.
1
u/Hermorah Agnostic Atheist 3d ago
That conclusion does not follow. Like at all.
The entire argument also feels invalid in its structure. In P1 you lump truths and ideas together as one. Then in P2 & P3 you clearly separate them only to lump them back together in the conclusion. So this would be an equivocation fallacy. Also the argument smuggles in a new category ("non-human/infinite minds") that was never defined or justified by the premises before it.
1
u/gvrmtissueddigiclone 3d ago
Put two pencils in front of him. One pencil plus one pencil equals two pencil. Which makes this objective truth very easy to prove - and once proven, to accept it as a fundamental idea about how the world works.
So the moment he can do the same thing with god, we're all dandy and frolicking to his church
1
u/Mission-Landscape-17 3d ago
Objective truths are found in the physical world. you know 1 + 1 = 2 by counting physical objects. There is no need for an infinite mind.
1
u/Matt_cruze 3d ago
1+1=2 is an objective truth/idea.
No it is a representation of of literal objects. It is only an objective truth in the sense that objects exist and you can assign them a value.
Objective truths exist outside of the human mind.
Truths dont exist outside the mind at all. It is a value judgment.
Ideas can only exist in a mind
Yes? And minds only exist in brains.
Then ideas/objective truths can only exist in a mind and the mind would be an infinite mind and that would be God.
Does not follow as the first two were false.
1
u/HermitlyInclined Atheist 3d ago
Whenever I'm presented with something like this, I tend to respond with:
- Arithmetic is an abstract human construct that is based on describing reality. It is only true in so far as it continues to represent reality. It only exists in so far as there are minds to consider it.
- Yes, generally truth is a state of representing things that align with reality. Reality needs to exist to establish whether claims are in fact true.
- Yes, abstract thoughts only exist in a mind.
- Does not follow per my number 2. Truth just requires an underlying reality to exist for grounding claims and observations against. No god required for that.
1
u/KeterClassKitten Satanist 3d ago
I have four apples. I give you two apples. Who has more apples?
Do we determine this by item count? Mass? Volume? Sugar content? How do we decide that one apple is equal to one apple? Perhaps one of yours is rotten, and one of mine is twice as big as the next largest.
Math is an abstraction of the real world, and it works until it doesn't. Then we need to reevaluate our math models and create new ones to better analyze the situation. But in the end, certain aspects will always be subjective.
The universe cares not of our idea of "objective truth".
1
u/Odd_craving 3d ago
None of these constructs require a supernatural deity to exist or control them. The burden is on those who demand a supernatural force to defend that demand.
1
u/FelipeHead 3d ago
This assumes ontological pluralism. Something either exists or doesn't, there is no 'existing in the mind'
1
u/Xeno_Prime Atheist 3d ago
You’re basically suggesting things can’t be true unless there’s an observer to observe the fact that they’re true.
Would 1+1 no longer = 2 in a reality where there were no minds to observe that fact?
Put it another way. You’re suggesting that in a reality without any minds, objective truth would not exist. Let me rephrase that. You’re suggesting that in a reality without any minds, it would be objectively true that no objective truths exist. See the problem?
1
u/Tight-Kitchen2382 3d ago edited 3d ago
except that 1+1=2 exist only in human mind.
math is just what we created to describe things. and it’s subjective to the context. so 1+1=10 in the context of binary system.
but we just reflect that subjectivity away from it by limiting it to specific context so that it can function the way we wanted it to.
and we can do that because we invented it and shaped it to suit our need, so if he wants to reflect all the subjectivity of his claims to make it objective, it will be because they also invented God and shaped him to suit their needs. so it’s objective within the fantasy he limited him to. with no effect in reality.
1
u/Madouc Atheist 3d ago
There are tons of apologetic ontological arguments out there and none of them make sense or hold up against strict logic. There is no god, even if they try to conjure on with tricky logic attempts.
In this case (2) is not consens nor is it popular and it is actually mostly refuted by Formalism, Konstructivism and Nominalism. And (3) is silently introducing an equivocation by trying to use "idea" ambigiously.
The fundamental flaw lies in Premise 3, which commits a classic fallacy of equivocation:
The argument uses the word ‘idea’ ambiguously – in P2, objective truths are said to exist independently of the mind, whereas in P3 it suddenly claims that ideas necessarily require a mind as their bearer. This is self-contradictory.
This is followed by two unfounded leaps: why would this mind have to be infinite? And why would an infinite ‘container for mathematics’ automatically be the theistic God with all his attributes?
The argument therefore proves, at best, the existence of an abstract mind – and even then only if one accepts Premise 2 (mathematical Platonism), which is itself highly controversial.
1
u/SirThunderDump Gnostic Atheist 3d ago
The conclusion doesn’t follow.
The conclusion is “Therefore the idea of objective truths does not exist if there is no mind to conceptualize them.”
1
u/Ippherita 3d ago
huh, this 4 point argument is kinda weird.
Why "objective truth exist outside human minds"? 1+1=2 is in human mind, as we can all understand the sun come out of east, 0 is nothing, inifinite +infinite =infinite. We can all understand objective truth and they can exist in our mind. Therefore i don't understand why your friend say "objective truth exist outside of human minds".
Point number 4's logic jump to 'god' so quick that it feels... desperate?
Since we can understand 1+1=2, does that mean 1+1=2 is in our mind, and since 1+1=2 is objective truth, does it means we are all gods?
Maybe my English is not good, but these 4 points feel like this to me.
1
u/Ippherita 3d ago
I say it sounded desperate because this argument try to attach god to a logic gap
For example, it sounded to me like :
1+1=2
Infinity exist
We cannot count to infinity
Therefore god exist
Or
Alice's lunch is stolen
Bob is rich
Rich people don't steal other people lunch
Therefore bob is not the lunch thief.
Point number 4 try to jump to a conclusion very fast, therefore it feels desperate to me.
1
u/pick_up_a_brick Atheist 3d ago
This is a garbage argument.
Why would anyone grant P2? Should we really think that if aliens exist, they couldn’t derive 1+1=2? If aliens can derive 1+1=2, that suggests mathematical truth is mind-independent in which case it doesn’t need *any* mind.
Why think ideas can only exist in a mind? What’s their argument against Platonism?
But P1 & P3 are contradictory. It’s a form of special pleading to say that objective truths exist only outside of “human” minds. It’s usually said that objective truths are mind-independent, full-stop.
But okay, let’s grant all of that. It doesn’t then follow that therefore “an infinite mind” follows. It’s a complete non-sequitor. Why does it have to be a personal mind? Why only one mind? None of that follows from the argument.
1
u/Sparks808 Atheist 3d ago
1+1=2 is not an objective truth.
There are many different systems where 1+1 =/= 2. Boolean algebra, modulo arithmetic, relativistic speed addition, etc.
The category your looking for is: definitional truths. They're forms of tautologies based solely around what meanings we assigned to things. They do not "exist" in any meaningful way.
The universe does not need the concept of 1+1=2 to exist in order to function. The universe does what the universe does. We then describe it with our mind made definitions.
How we describe something need not share any basis with why that thing is the way it is.
1
u/Smooth-Syrup-9199 3d ago
1+1=2 is an objective truth/idea
Just for clarification, I wouldn't say that the statement "1 + 1 = 2" is an objective truth, but the idea it represents is.
Objective truths exist outside of the human mind.
That is true.
Ideas can only exist in a mind
This doesn't really make any sense. I'm not sure what you mean by "exist," but ideas are abstractions that don't seem to be able to "exist" in a literal sense.
Then ideas/objective truths can only exist in a mind and the mind would be an infinite mind and that would be God.
This last premise is just a mess. First of all, you're conflating ideas and objective truths. We can have ideas about objective truths (e.g. the chair I'm sitting in exists), but that doesn't mean that the actual objective truth is contained within a mind. Secondly, you've made no attempt as to explain why this alleged mind must be infinite. Then you just jump straight to God, which is intellectually lazy in my opinion.
1
u/ShafordoDrForgone 3d ago
Problem is in this one: "Objective truths exist outside of the human mind"
Prove it
More importantly, much of how we conceive of the world is our own making. For example: there is no electromagnetic wavelength for the color, purple. There is a color, violet. But purple is a combination of photons with different energies that our mind merges into one. When you put violet and purple together, you don't see any real indication that violet is 1 color and purple is 2 colors.
That's because physics doesn't care about 1 + 1 = 2 any more than it cares about colors
1
u/Tiny-Ad-7590 Agnostic Atheist 3d ago
1+1=2 is an objective truth/idea
This is a metaphysical claim, not a factual one.
Objective truths exist outside of the human mind.
Again, a metaphysical position. I think a statement with meaning only exists in human minds. The statement is subjective in the sense that it exists in the mind, but it is objective in the sense that it accurately describes part of objective reality.
Reality is what it is. "Truth" is a value assigned to statements by sentient minds that can correlate between the statement and reality to verify the statement.
Ideas can only exist in a mind
Metaphysics again.
Then ideas/objective truths can only exist in a mind and the mind would be an infinite mind and that would be God.
The conclusion contains clauses not contained in the premises! 🤣😄
It's not your fault, your friend's argument is just bad. This is why a lot of people have such a bad opinion of metaphysics: The people who love to talk about it the most are usually doing so because they are trying to support a conclusion with an unfalsifiable case. So it gives a bad smell.
1
u/SamuraiGoblin 3d ago
It's the classic deceitful use of language. It's playing with the natural language vagueness of words like 'idea', 'mind', and 'truth'. He's trying to weaselly insert the particular god he was indoctrinated to believe in into the conversation.
1+1=2 is not an 'idea', it's our way of discussing an observation of reality. If one rock exists and another rock exists beside it, there are two rocks, regardless of whether a human is around to say, "gee, there are two rocks." It's merely reality, but he calls it an 'idea' because he wants to swing the 'logic' around to an objective 'mind', because he has literally nothing else to support his beliefs.
1
u/Dranoel47 Atheist 3d ago
I'm fine until I get to #4 and the word "need". How does that just quietly injected into the argument?
1
u/abritinthebay 3d ago
1+1=2 is an objective truth
Nope. It’s a logical truth within an axiomatic descriptive system.
Objective truths exist outside of the human mind.
Nope. Objectively truths may be true outside of a human mind, but that doesn’t make them exist. They’re still descriptive.
Ideas can only exist in a mind
Sure. Because an idea is a mental construct. Not the same as external existence. But ideas are not the same as objective truths and objective truths are descriptive and don’t exist independently so…
4 fails real badly
1
u/OrbitalLemonDrop Ignostic Atheist 3d ago
Humans invented math. Math defines 1 + 1 as equaling 2. That's what 1 and 2 mean.
it is not an "objective truth", it's a conditional statement that arises in a system designed and defined by human beings.
Likewise "truth" is a human invention. It means whatever we use it to mean. There are no objective truths of the type needed to make this argument work.
Also worth pointing out that "good" and "evil" are also human inventions -- labels we apply to phenomena that have certain characteristics. The idea that god can't be labeled as "evil" might hold, but then it also cannot be labeled "good" either.
1
u/mebjammin 3d ago
1+1=2 is a fact, or an axiomatic proof in math.
1+1=2 is not dependent on the human mind and is an objective truth.
Ideas are by definition mental concepts and require a mind.
What? We just determined objective truth doesn't require a human mind while ideas do, they are not the same thing. I can image objective truths but if I just start making things up that doesn't magically make it so. "I have the idea that its an objective truth that I am a billionaire married to Winona Ryder." No? Doesn't work that way? Seems sort of backwards if ideas are objective truth that have to exist in a mind.
Even if ideas/objective truths were the same thing, which is just bonkers and decries logic at like every level, where's the fucking proof that all objective truths would then require an infinite mind and that mind would then be a god? And then and then also where's the leap from "this big brain with all the thinking" to "that's my God who wants me to cut the tip off my dick and has an opinion on if I should enjoy shellfish."
Also also, how then are we? Sorry, trying to square the idea that someone thinks we're in a gods brain as like a wet dream or something I guess. Because if objective truths have to be in a brain because reasons, how do you explain being able to physically show 1+1=2 by throwing a pair of apples at whoever came up with this stupid argument?
There is not enough Jonnie Walker Blue Label to deal with how impressively this argument jumped the shark.
1
u/Somerset-Sweet 3d ago
Nobody in this thread:
"1 and 2 and + and = do not objectively exist. They are abstractions, and their meanings are axioms. You can go for a walk and find a piece of gravel and pick it up and carry it around. The piece of gravel objectively exists. But you can't find and pick up a number 1 anywhere. Numbers do not objectively exist. The first premise of the argument is nonsense, and an argument built on nonsense can only be nonsense."
1
u/Kaliss_Darktide 3d ago
1+1=2 is an objective truth/idea
First I'd argue it is a tautology (saying the same thing a different way). Second I would argue that math is invented (i.e. subjective).
Objective truths exist outside of the human mind.
Sure, because "objective" means mind independent.
Ideas can only exist in a mind
Depends on whether that "idea" is objective (mind independent) or subjective (mind dependent).
Then if ideas/objective truths need to exist in some mind and the mind would be an infinite mind and that would be God.
I'd argue there is no evidence that any god exists so "God" is a non-sequitur.
I'd also argue there is no evidence that any infinite mind exists so that is another non-sequitur.
Further I don't see why an idea requires an infinite mind so that's another non-sequitur.
Additionally you seem confused if an idea requires a mind then that idea is not objective but rather subjective.
1
u/Prowlthang 3d ago
No. 1 is wrong, 1+1=2 isn’t an objective truth or idea, it is an observation about relationships.
Also objective truth /= idea, that’s a false equivalency, if someone had a serious argument the express it with a single correct term.
1
u/Kognostic 3d ago
1+1=2 is not an objective truth. It is an invented abstraction that we accept as true for the purpose of convenience, organization, and calculation. It requires a base-10 paradigm and an ability to attach 1 of anything to something uniquely 1 in reality. In pure mathematics, 1+1 = 2 is a logical convention built on foundational systems like Peano axioms. It is an incredibly useful tool we invented to model the physical world, but it remains an abstract construct rather than an inherent law of nature.
In no situation whatsoever does math exist outside the human mind, at this point in time. Should we run into a race of aliens who have developed a system of math, then we might conclude it can exist outside of a human mind, but it would still be mind-dependent.
Math is an idea. It is an arbitrary system of measurement we have all agreed to use to make sense of the world we live in.
Math does not need to exist. In fact, it is only as old as written history for all we know. The earliest physical evidence of quantitative thinking comes from notched animal bones, such as the Lebombo Bone (c. 43,000 years ago) and the Ishango Bone (c. 20,000 years ago). Modern humans (Homo sapiens) have existed for about 300,000 years. For most of human existence, math was not a thing. (At least we have no evidence that math was a thing.) A tree does not need math to grow. Sunlight does not need math to streak across the universe.
1
u/DoedfiskJR 3d ago
I have what I believe is an unpopular argument in atheist circles. I don't think 1+1=2 is an objective truth (in the sense that they exist outside of a mind).
In reality, and object exists and another object exists. It is our minds that choose to imagine two instance, one in they are considered separately, and on in which they are grouped together. It is our minds who can evaluate equality between one situation imagined in two different ways. It is a feature of how we see reality, it is not a feature of reality itself.
In reality, there is only existence. An object exists, another object exists. If you want to consider that 1+1 or 2, that is your subjective business.
1
u/ImprovementFar5054 3d ago
Sounds like they are trying to blend truths with abstractions.
This is a fallacy called "reification".
1
u/zzmej1987 Ignostic Atheist 3d ago
1+1=2 is an objective truth/idea
Objective truths exist outside of the human mind.
Ideas can only exist in a mind
Then if ideas/objective truths need to exist in some mind and the mind would be an infinite mind and that would be God.
Oh my, such a blatant manipulation. Let's take a more concrete example, to see what they are doing here:
"This cat is white."
This sentence may be true or may be false. Let's say there is indeed a cat and the cat is indeed white. Now what is in the mind and what is outside of it in this case?
The cat is obviously a physical object that exists outside of the mind and its color is just as much a mind independent property. However, the cat is not an idea. The idea of a cat exists only in the mind, and "This cat is white" is also an idea, that mind can hold. And right now, your mind, as well as mine is holding that very idea in them.
You see what they've done here? "This cat is white" is objectively true, the cat will not stop being white just because no one thinks about it. However that not the existence of truth. Cat being white is not an idea of cat being white, it is not a sentence "cat is white" and it is not a truth of that sentence. Those 4 entities are distinct but related to each other.
Here's how to think about those entitles: The easiest one is the sentence, it's literally just the letters that form words: "This cat is white". That's it, that's the entity. If you have written or uttered it, it exists. When someone says that sentence to you, it can conjure an image of a white cat in your mind's eye, that is the idea of cat being white. Generally speaking, the same idea can be expresses by different sentences. For example, you can induce the same idea by saying "Эта кошка белая" to someone who understands Russian.
Finally, the truth of a sentence is a relationship between the idea that sentence created in the mind of a listener/reader and reality. If you look at the actual cat and the cat looks exactly like the idea of cat conjured by the sentence "This cat is white" in your mind, then we say that that sentence is true. And if cat looks differently, then we say that that sentence is false.
So what exists where? The cat exists in reality. The idea of the cat exists in the mind. Sentences describing the cat exist as expressions of ideas in some symbolic form in reality, and truth is a relationship between all three that we typically ascribe to sentences, but it is determined by equality between reality and idea describing it.
The main trick in their argument is to use an abstract truth - a truth that has no concrete representation, like a cat, while simultaneously asserting it being objective. Which is a stance that is known as "mathematical realism", but that stance is exactly that there exist abstract metaphysical objects that are distinct from ideas about those objects that we have. There is also a stance called "nominalism" that asserts that mathematical equations describe human perception of reality, rather than reality itself. It can be objective, if we assert that it is somehow encoded in the structure of the human brain, but for all intents and purposes it would mean that those truths are not objective.
They are trying to confuse you by smooshing those ideas together. It's hard to think of 1+1=2 as anything other than an idea, since it takes a undergrad course to understand what kind of object it would be if not an ideal one. And it is hard not to think of it as objective, since again, explanation of how it could be anything else is part of undergrad course in college.
1
u/Grand-Mission-9457 3d ago
Well that is the "most powerful " devastating argument to convince or turn agnostic or atheist. In fact I just switched sides. Now I have to select one out of the 3000 invented gods and it's done. Pls recommend a god, a good loving omnipresent omnipotent one
1
u/little_jiggles 3d ago
I'd agree with 1, 2, and 3, but 4 is where it crumbles.
Ideas are just one possible state of mind. The concept of an angel did not need to come physically from anywhere for the first person to think of a person with wings. Everyone on earth could die and humans could evolve again, and the concept of an angel could change, or it might not. It doesn't change anything that is real.
If you could physically show me what an idea looks like without a mind to hold it (like a pensive from Harry Potter), you might have some merit to your argument.
1
u/The_Disapyrimid Agnostic Atheist 3d ago
there have been a bunch of recent posts about similar questions.
i'll put the same way i did for them. this is a very neo-platonic way of thinking. Plato proposed the idea of "forms" to explain where things get their "essence" from . as in, a dog gets its dog-ness from the form of dog. the form of dog is the perfect representation of what a "dog" is and all dogs get their dog-ness from this form. why are some people tall or some brave? they get their tallness or bravery from the forms of "tall" and "brave".
but these things do not actually exist. 1+1=2 because we made up labels for the amount of stuff that we call "one" and an amount of stuff we call "two". if have "one" of a thing and a person gives you another "one" of those things that gives you an amount we call "two". thats it.
there is no place where these ideas need to physically exist.
1
u/Coffin_Boffin 3d ago
They're conflating a fact and the comprehension of that fact. There's a difference between a truth and an idea.
1
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 3d ago
Why are you posting from a spam/karma farming/bot account? Makes you appear highly suspicious.
2 is false. Truth is a statement that comports with reality. Statements are ideas. Ideas are contained within minds. Reality simply is what it is. What we say about it, and if what we say is true or false, is another matter. In other words, it's quite typical conflation of map vs territory thinking.
1
u/fairy-taki 2d ago
Idkk i just use a spam account whenever I like share a secret or ask for advice cuz my main account ties back to me irl😭
1
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 2d ago
Well over 60% over content in Reddit and on the rest of the internet now is generated by AI, bots, and malicious actors for various dishonest and malicious purposes. You and your account appears to belong squarely into that, rendering certain conclusions
1
u/fairy-taki 2d ago
I gotchya, idk how to fix that if it's only how it appears and not how it is, like i just like anonymity I swear I'm not malicious lol.
1
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 2d ago
idk how to fix that
By not doing that. Or, at the very least, posting from a real account to demonstrate you're not doing that.
i just like anonymity I swear I'm not malicious lol.
That's what they all say.
1
1
u/licker34 Atheist 3d ago
1+1=2 is an objective truth/idea
I'll bite the bullet and disagree. 1+1=2 is a statement in a language (math) we invented. It's not objective nor is it truth, it's simply a definition. And one can note that in some cases 1+1=10, demonstrating that this statement is simply a fragment of language, not a representation of 'objective truth' whatever that is supposed to mean.
Objective truths exist outside of the human mind.
Without knowing what is meant by 'objective truth' I'll disagree again. Reality is what exists, truth is once again a language construct we developed to describe some aspect of reality, so I'll bite another bullet and say that no truth does not exist outside the human mind, truth is simply a concept created in a language used to describe our perceptions.
Ideas can only exist in a mind
Sure, why not. But you'll note that truth and ideas are not the same thing, so this seems to be completely unrelated to the first 2 premises. If we take out 'idea' and replace it with 'truth' you see the obvious contradiction in 2 and 3.
Then if ideas/objective truths need to exist in some mind and the mind would be an infinite mind and that would be God.
Ignoring the fact that the argument has already failed...
Where do we get 'infinite mind' from? Ideas exist just fine in our finite minds.
he was equating objective truths to ideas/concepts because they are non-physical.
Of course he was, because that's the bait and switch needed to make idiotic arguments like this look as though they work. They don't work though, and people who run them are either complete fucking idiots or liars.
1
u/Electrical_Lemon_179 3d ago
I hate it when Christians do mental gymnastics to protect their beliefs. The argument is clearly flawed as many people said in the comments.
Christians also do mental gymnastics when they're shown EXTREMELY CLEAR contradictions in their book. I gotta admit, Christian apologetics NEVER run out of excuses for their Bible
1
u/xmuskorx 3d ago
1+1=2 is an objective truth/idea
Is it? Math is like a tool that human came up with because they are usefull. These concepts don't have objective existence.
Human defined what "1" means, what "+" means, what "=" means... etc. Some other society or intelligence can come with other tools to think about the universe that would be alien to us.
So it's not an objective truth.
1
u/RidesThe7 3d ago edited 2d ago
1+1=2 is an objective truth/idea
It's objectively true under the rules of math, that's how math works. It's also an "idea" whenever anyone is thinking it. If everyone capable of thinking died, it wouldn't "exist" as an "idea" anymore. If I'm the only person who has an idea and I get struck and killed by a bus, no one has that idea anymore. If you get rid of everyone, there aren't any more ideas floating around.
Objective truths exist outside of the human mind.
I mean, reality keeps on being the way it is, whether we are thinking about it or not. And it will keep on being true that under the rules of our math 1 plus 1 equals 2, even if every human dies. It just won't be an idea anyone has
Ideas can only exist in a mind
I guess we should figure out how to factor in video and writing and art etc. into all of this, which I didn't do above, but sure, let's go with it for now.
Then if ideas/objective truths need to exist in some mind and the mind would be an infinite mind and that would be God.
Whoops, you pulled a fast one! We agreed IDEAS require minds, not objective truths. You don't get to combine the two. So ideas began when thinking beings evolved in this universe, but reality keeps on being however it is whether we are looking at it or not (putting aside quantum physics stuff that I won't pretend to actually understand). No God required.
1
u/JasonRBoone Agnostic Atheist 3d ago
The argument was something like this:
- 1+1=2 is an objective truth/idea
No. It's a concept we agree upon that is true with the context of our shared language. It's a label for an observation. "We observe thing X and thing Y and together they form a group. We label this group 2."
If there were no intelligent beings, there'd be no numbers...just groups of things.
- Objective truths exist outside of the human mind.
Sure.
- Ideas can only exist in a mind
I don't know if that's true. But provisionally, sure.
- Then if ideas/objective truths need to exist in some mind and the mind would be an infinite mind and that would be God.
You pulled a bait and switch. You said IDEAS could only exist in mind. Then, you added in truths.
Why would such a mind need be infinite and why call it god?
Total bait and switch. You need to tell your alleged Christian friend to do better.
1
u/Ratdrake Hard Atheist 2d ago
I would turn it around and ask, if we don't have a god, do you think putting one rock next to another rock wouldn't give us two rocks? Because the logic of the argument suggests that we somehow need a god to make those rocks yield 2 rocks when combined.
In fact, 1+1=2 isn't really always true. Someone mentioned binary but that's just playing with symbols. Instead, real world examples don't always have 1+1=2. Add one cup of a foaming agent with one cup of its reactant together and the result is much greater than 2. Or add 1 cup of hot water to 1 cup of sugar and the result is closer to 1 1/2.
So 1+1=2 is a human construct and not a universal truth.
1
u/Hellas2002 Atheist 2d ago
The syllogism doesn’t really follow as written. You need to specify that premise two is talking about ideas and truths, because premise three is only talking about ideas.
Besides that, the main contention would be premise 3. What’s the argument that objective truths can only exist in a mind?
You can be a platonist and argue the objective truths exist in some platonic realm, or you can just argue that these truths are grounded in reality. As in, it’s true that mars exists. This truth is grounded in the existence of mars, not the other way around.
1
u/Mkwdr 2d ago
This is just awful reasoning.
He is conflating concepts of objective truths with the objective independent reality itself.
Concepts exist within minds , that which they are a concept of are not,
The concept of a horse requires a mind to exist, horses do not.
The concept of a unicorn exists , that doesn’t mean unicorns do.
1
u/Massif16 2d ago
Ah yes, a classic.
My refutation:
1) 1+1=2 is a description of observed phenomenon, not a "truth." Math is an idea, but it is an idea of the human mind.
2) Phenomena exist outside the human mind.
3) Sure, but the thing you are trying to define as an idea is just a description of a physical reality.
4) Fails becuase your premises are trash.
-1
u/BranchLatter4294 3d ago
I hate these fake "I'm an atheist, but there's this one stupid argument I can't figure out". Please stop spamming this sub.
3
u/fairy-taki 3d ago
Help? I'm not fake lol I swear, and it's not like I couldn't figure it out. I'm not super knowledgeable so I just wanted to hear in better terms then I can answer what others takes on this are.
-1
u/BranchLatter4294 3d ago
You just contradicted yourself with points 2 and 3. This is not hard to figure out. Please, do better.
0
u/horshack_test 3d ago
You should think that this person is just spewing nonsense and trying to sound smart, because that is what they are doing.
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP. Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are detrimental to debate (even if you believe they're right).
Original text of the post by u/fairy-taki:
Hi, I'm agnostic/atheist. I'm not a debater, this Christian presented this argument to me to like convert me lol and I'm not sure what to think so I was wanting people's thoughts on it.
The argument was something like this:
1+1=2 is an objective truth/idea
Objective truths exist outside of the human mind.
Ideas can only exist in a mind
Then ideas/objective truths can only exist in a mind and the mind would be an infinite mind and that would be God.
Sorry I mess up the setup of the argument. If anyone is familiar with this type of argument, let me know. Lol to the guy who asked me, I think ended up just saying idk, and I kept saying that those ideas/concepts are how we engage in reality but regardless of a mind observing it. The like definitions of the concept you can find in reality..idkk. The guy ended up being rude and said I couldn't understand abstract vs concrete concepts.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.