I think it is rather naive to think that there’s anything divine to view when there is no evidence to support that claim.
Then please tell me what empirical evidence could decide whether the natural numbers exist.
I don’t think anything divine exists. But I also don’t think the question is to be decided by strawmanning the notion into oblivion.
“Do numbers exist in and of themselves” is a whole other can of worms. You really can’t jump into a thread and presume that we all agree that they do.
I don’t; but according to @Mijin, whether or not they do is an empirical claim.
The problem comes down to the use of ‘more.’ It’s well-defined with finite sets, but not so much with infinite sets. Take the counting numbers and the integers. The complement of the counting numbers in the integers, the negative integers*, is countably infinite, yet all three sets have the same cardinality: none of them can be said to have ‘more’ elements than any of the others, despite the infinitude of that complement. So the fact that the complement of the rationals in the reals is uncountably infinite doesn’t really say anything about how many ‘more’ elements the reals have than the rationals.
*“Zero is a counting number.” Dr. George McNulty, University of South Carolina
(Someday, someone will Google his name and come across this quote. If they were any of his grad students, they’ll grin and nod.)
But that there aren’t finitely many more is rigorously clear. There is a bijection between the naturals and any number of copies of the naturals, even between the naturals and \aleph_0 copies of the naturals, but not between the naturals and the reals, or the set of all subsets of the naturals. So I’d say it’s reasonable to talk about ‘infinitely more’, in the sense of beyond any finite number more. But I’ll settle for ‘stupidly more’.
I don’t think that’s an empirical claim. I was using the word “exist” in the sense of describing an observable entity, or something with observable effects. If we are using “exist” in the broader, conceptual sense then father Christmas exists.
Please do not put words in other people’s mouths.
Can we all, at least, agree that ∞ is the One, True, god and 0 is it’s only prophet?
Well, my bad for thinking you were using the word in the sense of its actual meaning, I guess.
Your words were:
Deriving from there that you hold that the existence of the natural numbers is an empirical claim is just an instance of specification.
The integers are constructed from axioms, namely “1” and the successor function. Natural numbers are constructed from integers. I don’t know if that satisfies the desire for empirical evidence. However no one discovered “37” in a field or something, so that kind of empirical evidence is not relevant.
I know some people try to derive God axiomatically, but the axioms turn out to be false and the chain of reasoning not all that good.
Ha! King Arthur discovered Dennis the Peasant in a field, and Dennis said, “I’m 37.” So King Arthur discovered 37 in a field. So there! 
Words have more than one meaning, and the meaning I was using was the more relevant one for this discussion.
As I explained, if existing conceptually counts as “exist” here, then any entity that we can conceive of “exists”, from the tooth fairy to sonic the hedgehog.
Regardless, the rhetoric of (essentially) “Mijin thinks that <strawman>” is pretty low. If you think that something is entailed from what I said, then you can put that to me, that would be the good faith thing to do.
The thing is, you “finding the Lord” sounds like something very specific to you and your experience. That is to say, why does you changing your outlook on life or finding it within yourself to connect with other people require any sort of divine intervention? And what is so special about you that God should choose you for such enlightenment while leaving plenty of others to wallow is misfit-ness?
I will admit to not having read all of this. I am an Atheist, I used to be a believing practicing Christian. From my understanding and experience you cannot, “prove,” the existence of god and you probably shouldn’t try. Belief in the Christian tradition I’m familiar with depends on faith and faith should not depend on proof.
But the relevant meaning of ‘exists’ here isn’t one of existing conceptually, but as an independent, objectively real thing, as in mathematical Platonism. It’s a legit philosophical position that the natural numbers exist in this sense, which is contrary to a position holding that all existence questions are empirical questions.
Please try and follow the conversation. I was merely explaining to @Babale that I wasn’t claiming that the natural numbers have objective reality, but reacting to your claim that all existence questions are empirical questions by providing an example where that’s not the case.
I wasn’t doing anything different from what you did here in this very thread: explaining the view I took you to hold to another poster.
Which is really a retcon, because God used to prove He existed all the time, both in the New and Old Testaments. Jesus turned water into wine, had food miracles, cured lepers, showed Thomas the holes in his hands to prove his resurrection. Moses’s God performed better miracles than the Egyptians, split the sea, etc. God avoided killing Jewish first-borns, but went and killed a bunch of Egyptian first-born.
Why did they get all the miracles, but modern people have to rely on faith? Maybe because Paul missed out on the action and had to rely on faith, I guess.
Well, according to himself, he had his own private miracle on the way to Damascus.
Less impressive. I can do a back flip, but not when anyone is watching.
Yeah–@RTFirefly’s story is wonderful, and I’m very happy for them. But if the story had involved their finding a loving community in a group of Ren Faire enthusiasts, or a hiking group, or a charity organization, I would find it just as plausible.
In fact, “lonely person finds new meaning in a tight-knit community” is such a well-known dynamic that the Ku Klux Klan exploits it here in North Carolina: one of their best recruitment strategies is to hang out next to methadone clinics and target White addicts who look particularly alone, and offer them fellowship and material needs. People who have these needs met look really, really positively at any ideological beliefs that are part of the new community.
That doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. And it doesn’t in any way cheapen the wonderful change in @RTFirefly’s life. But the change is wonderful for itself; it’s not evidence of God’s existence that translates at all for other people.
[quote=“msmith537, post:193, topic:1000101”]
The thing is, you “finding the Lord” sounds like something very specific to you and your experience. That is to say, why does you changing your outlook on life or finding it within yourself to connect with other people require any sort of divine intervention? [/quote]
You spend your years from six to 16 being bullied and harassed when you’re not just being left alone, and you miss major steps in your social development. Changing my outlook in life wouldn’t have remedied that. The love of a divine being did.
In answer to your closing question, have you heard phrases like “being born again”? Of course you have - it’s been practically a cliche for ages. It’s not like it’s a big secret that there are people who regard the availability of such an experience as a given.
I’m happy to discuss this at greater length, but perhaps this digression should be moved to another thread: the reason I brought it up in the first place was to give an example of something that might be regarded as miraculous that doesn’t seem to be particularly attributable to either aliens or futuristic technology.