Evidence of Deity

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;121036 wrote:

I edited this in before you made your post, but it is evidence that I wasn't making the slippage.

But what I don't understand from your post is what abstract entity means, and why you don't think the number three is an abstract notion. Aren't numbers abstractions? The number three is a thing in the world? Where?

Can you give me an example of an abstract entity? Abstract entities, as far as you've described them, are the things. Abstract notions are not the things, they are the concepts of those abstract things. But they both can exist.

I said the number three is not an abstract notion because it isn't a notion at all. No more than unicorn is a concrete notion, since unicorn is not a notion at all. That is the slippage; from thing to notion. You don't think an elephant is a notion, so why would you think that the number three is a notion (abstract or not)?

Abstract entities are entities that have neither spatial nor temporal properties. The number three is an abstract entity. Truth is an abstract entity. (Of course I am supposing that there are abstract entities). Again, I caution you not to confuse abstract entities with abstract concepts or abstract notions. Abstract concepts, and abstract notions, are notions of abstract entities.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;121034 wrote:

Of course, if the number three does not exist, then we can say that the number three is only a concept.

The number three is never a concept.

Quote:

And that, of course, means that there is the concept of the number three, but there is no number three.

Right.

The concept three exists whether the number three exists or not.

---------- Post added 01-19-2010 at 12:42 PM ----------

Zetherin;121036 wrote:

But what I don't understand from your post is what abstract entity means, and why you don't think the number three is an abstract notion. Aren't numbers abstractions? The number three is a thing in the world? Where?

The thing to keep in mind is that the number three is not a product of the mind. The planet Earth is the third planet from the sun. That fact is not mind dependent. Three is a number, but it's not a product of the mind, but that it's not a product of the mind isn't to say that it's a concrete object.

@fast,

fast;121043 wrote:

The number three is never a concept.

Right.

The concept three exists whether the number three exists or not.

---------- Post added 01-19-2010 at 12:42 PM ----------

The thing to keep in mind is that the number three is not a product of the mind. The planet Earth is the third planet from the sun. That fact is not mind dependent. Three is a number, but it's not a product of the mind, but that it's not a product of the mind isn't to say that it's a concrete object.

But sometimes, people say, "the number three is only a concept" when, what they really mean is, "only the concept of the number three exists". It is a misleading way of speaking.

@kennethamy,

[QUOTE=kennethamy;121052]But sometimes, people say, "the number three is only a concept" when, what they really mean is, "only the concept of the number three exists". It is a misleading way of speaking.[/QUOTE]And when they say only the concept of the number three exists, they don't mean to imply that the concept of the number four doesn't exist, yet they say only the concept of the number three exists anyway.

@fast,

fast;121043 wrote:

The thing to keep in mind is that the number three is not a product of the mind. The planet Earth is the third planet from the sun. That fact is not mind dependent. Three is a number, but it's not a product of the mind, but that it's not a product of the mind isn't to say that it's a concrete object.

I don't agree.
Numbers, sets, propositions, language, truth, fact, etc., are all mind dependent.

The states of affairs perist, but mental interpretations do not exist without mind.

fast,
"Three is a number, but it's not a product of the mind, but that it's not a product of the mind isn't to say that it's a concrete object"

In what metaphysical place do numbers reside?

@jeeprs,

fast wrote:

The thing to keep in mind is that the number three is not a product of the mind. The planet Earth is the third planet from the sun. That fact is not mind dependent. Three is a number, but it's not a product of the mind, but that it's not a product of the mind isn't to say that it's a concrete object.

I see. This is the part I cannot grasp. It seems to me the number three is a product of the mind, and only a product of the mind. It isn't an entity, it is a notion.

kennethamy wrote:

Abstract entities are entities that have neither spatial nor temporal properties. The number three is an abstract entity. Truth is an abstract entity. (Of course I am supposing that there are abstract entities). Again, I caution you not to confuse abstract entities with abstract concepts or abstract notions. Abstract concepts, and abstract notions, are notions of abstract entities.

I do not understand this. Maybe I don't get what abstract entities are. I mean, ideas are abstract notions, right? They exist, but have no temporal or spatial properties. But you're saying ideas are abstract entities?

Hm, I'll try to articulate what I don't understand at a later time.

@Owen phil,

Owen;121054 wrote:

fast,
"Three is a number, but it's not a product of the mind, but that it's not a product of the mind isn't to say that it's a concrete object"

In what metaphysical place do numbers reside?

Not everything that exists is located somewhere.

I should say, instead, if abstract entities exist, then they do not exist somewhere.

@fast,

fast;121056 wrote:

Not everything that exists is located somewhere.

I should say, instead, if abstract entities exist, then they do not exist somewhere.

So, you don't even know if abstract entities exist? Then what makes it an entity, instead of a notion? I thought entity meant that it did exist.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;121057 wrote:

So, you don't even know if abstract entities exist? Then what makes it an entity, instead of a notion? I thought entity meant that it did exist.

It's posited to exist, and if what is posited is true, then they do exist.

@fast,

fast;121059 wrote:

It's posited to exist, and if what is posited is true, then they do exist.

But what makes the number three an abstract entity, and not an abstract notion? What is the key differentiating factor?

@fast,

fast;121056 wrote:

Not everything that exists is located somewhere.

I should say, instead, if abstract entities exist, then they do not exist somewhere.

Again, I disagree.

Things exist in the physical universe or they exist in mind.
Things are either concrete (physical) or abstract (mental).

Concrete objects exist within the physical universe.
Abstract objects exist within mind.

Numbers only exist in mind.

I consider that mind is the somewhere for abstract objects.

@Owen phil,

Owen;121063 wrote:

Again, I disagree.

Things exist in the physical universe or they exist in mind.
Things are either concrete (physical) or abstract (mental).

Concrete objects exist within the physical universe.
Abstract objects exist within mind.

Numbers only exist in mind.

I consider that mind is the somewhere for abstract objects.

That's my understanding of things.

I don't know what fast and kennethamy mean.

@jeeprs,

[QUOTE=Zetherin;121060]But what makes the number three an abstract entity, and not an abstract notion? What is the key differentiating factor?[/QUOTE]The number three is a class, and what it is a class of is all triples. An example of a triple would be three planets. All classes are abstract entities, but no class is an abstract notion.

An abstract notion is abstract, but it's also a notion, and all notions are mental notions, and all mental notions are mind dependent, but that mental notions are mind dependent isn't to say all abstract entities are mind dependent.

---------- Post added 01-19-2010 at 01:45 PM ----------

By the way, the number three is also a particular that belongs to the class number.

---------- Post added 01-19-2010 at 01:49 PM ----------

Owen;121063 wrote:

Things are either concrete (physical) or abstract (mental).

Physical implies concrete, but concrete doesn't imply physical.
Mental implies abstract, but abstract doesn't imply mental.

@Owen phil,

Owen;121063 wrote:

Again, I disagree.

Things exist in the physical universe or they exist in mind.
Things are either concrete (physical) or abstract (mental).

Concrete objects exist within the physical universe.
Abstract objects exist within mind.

Numbers only exist in mind.

I consider that mind is the somewhere for abstract objects.

when you say 'the mind', whose mind, in particular?

Numbers are the same for all minds. And different people have different abilities to understand numerical concepts. If I am unable to think of a particular number, does it mean it does not exist?

I think this concept of 'mental' is definitely problematic.

@fast,

fast;121053 wrote:

And when they say only the concept of the number three exists, they don't mean to imply that the concept of the number four doesn't exist, yet they say only the concept of the number three exists anyway.

Who says that only the concept of the number three exists? That is clearly false for the reason you have already given. After all, the concept of mermaid also exists. Of course, there may be the ambiguity of accent going on here. "Only the concept of the number three exist" does not express the same proposition as, "Only the concept of the number three exists". The first implies that the number three does not exist. The second does not imply that.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;120155 wrote:

People often use abstract notions as scapegoats for their own transgressions.

But in the case of religion, it has motivated atrocities. If we look at the Bible, there are many immoral things that are advocated (e.g., stoning disobedient children, killing "witches", etc.). It is true that some good things have been motivated by religion, that the particular people might not have done otherwise, but there are a lot of terrible things that would never have been done without religion.

@jeeprs,

Or without human nature. While we're at it, something really should be done about human nature; humans do terrible things.

@Pyrrho,

Pyrrho;121101 wrote:

But in the case of religion, it has motivated atrocities. If we look at the Bible, there are many immoral things that are advocated (e.g., stoning disobedient children, killing "witches", etc.). It is true that some good things have been motivated by religion, that the particular people might not have done otherwise, but there are a lot of terrible things that would never have been done without religion.

The problem comes when we overlook the accountability of individuals and place too much blame on the institutions' doctrines. I am not denying that things can have influence. They of course can, you are right. But should we not hold people accountable for atrocious acts because of that influence? Well, I suppose that is debatable, but I think we still should.

And, for the record, in religion's case, it usually is not the doctrines that are culprit. None of the well-known religious doctrines instruct people to go out and murder others - it is the depraved political motivations and greed that has corrupted the name of religion, for the most part. In fact, most of the well-known religious doctrines instruct people to be peaceful with one another. We shouldn't mistake religious intention with religious corruption.

@jeeprs,

Thanks Zetherin, I agree with that. I am not really an evangelical or anything but am heartily tired of the religion-bashing bandwagon that is doing the rounds. Whenever I read a sentence beginning with 'religion is...', I brace for a sweeping generalisation, and am rarely let down.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;121104 wrote:

And, for the record, in religion's case, it usually is not the doctrines that are culprit. None of the well-known religious doctrines instruct people to go out and murder others -

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)

You should not let a sorceress live.

If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27)

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9)

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)

1)If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)

And the book (doctrine) goes on and on with supporting and encouraging killing. I guess you never read the bible.

Philosophy Forum

Evidence of Deity

Quick Links

My Account

able2know