Atheists and Why Common Philosophical Debate Misses the Point

[basics]

The Pharisees believed in a resurrection whilst the Sadducees did not but both parties had people in the priesthood leadership that comprised the Sanhedrin. Why Jesus had more difficulty with the Pharisees was because they were steeped in the Law of Moses more so than the Sadducees. The former believed in all the prophetic writings but the latter did not and this was the main bone of contention between the two. Elon Gilad gives an acceptable explanation of how the Israelites became known as Jews.

[bigdaddy1204]

Modern atheism is not a serious belief system. The typical "antitheist" is uneducated in philosophy and has an emotional aversion to spirituality, despite being spiritual himself. Atheists are typically of slightly above-average intelligence, which is the source of their ignorance. A lot has been written about the dangers of a little intelligence. Religion is for the very intelligent and the very unintelligent. Atheists are too smart to fall for the dumb arguments, but, not smart enough to comprehend the more intelligent arguments.

Dr Legend, a strange and unfathomable thing has happened. I agree with you.

Not only do I agree, i think your post makes such a good point it has inspired admiration. I've noticed this too; the level of understanding of philosophy by Dawkins for example appears to be at a very poor level. As evidence for this, I can remember seeing Tweets by Dawkins where he made statements that clearly showed his complete ignorance. For lack of a better term, he was saying things that were "stupid" and easily disproved. I remember being struck with surprise that someone who is clearly very intelligent, could say such unintelligent things. It showed a lack of care/cavalier attitude in which the crime of hubris was clearly revealed and stood exposed for all to see.

[fkizz]

I would suggest that the fact that there were contemporary "parties" (The Sadducees and Essenes) who did not share these views makes attempting to refer to all Jews as Pharisees would not be an accurate portrayal, in intellectual communities or otherwise. The Pharisee doctrine disagreed with most of what Jesus said, so Pharisee would be a term used to refer to those who opposed to Jesus because those who opposed him were a member of that specific group.

The term Pharisees became very posh to use in intellectual circles. It's obviously not the only term.
So popular even used to refer to situations outside of Biblical context, as an analogy. I said both Pharisees and Hebrews, not just Pharisees, as people strawmanned me for.
Regardless, Rabbinical Judaism grows out of Pharisaic Judaism, and the most typically known form of Judaism today is Rabbinical Judaism. (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

Regardless I said Bibles from Papal States/Rome use Hebrew and Pharisee, amongst others, but Hebrew ends up being the most popular. Very used in Old Testament.

Secondly, if I understand correctly, the term "Jew" refers to an inhabitant of the region of Judah, a term which was largely expanded to refer to all Hebrews/Israelites after the Babylonian Exile

In some anthropology maybe, but in Roman Bibles there's a deeper game on use of terminology.

After that I'm fairly certain that Jews, Israelites, and Hebrews are used interchangeably, and unless there are some Bibilical quotations which demonstrate that there is some significant reason to distinguish between the terms, I am not sure why there is reason for debate on the matter personally.

Well I just said that Catholic Bibles in a romance language with latin at the roots do differentiate between Hebrew and Jew/Pharisee and this caused a lot of controversy not really sure why either.

There's both Biblical Christian reasons and Judaism reasons to differentiate between the two terms.
One of them being that the Jews we know today in our popular image belong to the particular branch of Rabbinical Judaism. In Jesus time, the texts needed for Rabbinical Judaism didn't exist yet, so the Jews of back then behaved to different codes and stereotypes to what we imagine today, despite sharing same ethnic name.

This is the more judaism-related reason. The christianism reason is closer this:

Ancient Hebrews who never interacted with Christ get a different denomiation from Hebrews who interacted with Christ and then rejected Christ and choose something else.
It's not fair to put people who never saw Christ and people who did in the same bag using same criteria.

Even the whole Calendar changes from BC to AD in denomination, so what's controversial about other denominations changing aswell?

[Abdülmecid I]

Don't try to deflect, fkizz. These are your claims:

There's a reason Jews are called "Pharisees" in New Testament.

If Jews as we know them today are in New Testament (only their Hebrew ancestors are there)

So, both of them are demonstrably false, as my citations of New Testament passages have proved. I have provided numerous quotes where Jews were called from their contemporaries as Jews. All of them in the original (Greek) and translated (Latin, Portuguese, French, Spanish) versions of the Bible. Meanwhile, despite me asking you to do so repeatedly, you haven't yet provided a single article or biblical quote, supporting your argument about the alleged differentiation between Hebrews and Jews during the times of Jesus. Third time's the charm?

Refering to Hebrews as Pharisees in New Testament is the most popular term in intellectual circles. Even Nietzsche will use the term "pharisees" to the sceptics of his ideas, despite being against christianity. Pharisee is a term that stuck. Can be used to refer to dissidents of Jesus on a spiritual rather than racial/ethnic level.

What the Pharisees are is a common knowledge. A a school of thought inside Judaism, as the article of Wikipedia ignore explains in the first paragraph. You have obviously completely misunderstood the metaphorical reference to the Pharisees made by intellectuals. It's a classy word to denote hypocrisy, not to describe the Jewry, because, according to the biased Christian tradition, the Pharisees propagated a strict adherence to the letter of the Judaic law, while missing the essence. By the way, although this is a point you just invented, in an effort to move your goalpost, the term Jew is also frequently used in the Old Testament, as well. Before the inevitable "Protestants suck at translating" argument makes its appearance, let's read some extracts from the purely Catholic and impeccable Portuguese version, choosing three different books:

Ora, quando Sambalate ouviu que edificávamos o muro, ardeu em ira,indignou-se muito e escarneceu dos judeus;

deixai de impedir a obra desta casa de Deus; edifiquem o governador dos judeus e os seus anciãos esta casa de Deus no seu lugar.

porque Hamã, filho de Hamedata, o agagita, o inimigo de todos os judeus, tinha intentado destruir os judeus, e tinha lançado Pur, isto é, a sorte, para os assolar e destruir;

Looks pretty Jewish to me, to be sincere. Anyway, let's be frank, here. You apparently never read the Holy Scriptures, an omission that made you believe the extravagant claim of an Antisemitic Christian fanatic, wishing to disassociate modern Jews from their ancestors, that the word Jew was never mentioned in the Bible, apart from the misleading translations of filthy heretics. You have been shown that this is a totally inaccurate conclusion, because very frequently communities of Jews, as well as individuals, were described as Jewish (from the Four Evangelists and St. Paul to the unknown authors in Persian Judaea). The simple truth is that, since the dissolution of the first Israelite kingdoms, the terms "Hebrews" and "Jews" are used interchangeably, being considered as synonymous. That's fine, everyobody has a right to be wrong and nobody is necessarily required to learn by heart a collection of ancient religious instructions and myths. However, wat I still fail to understand is your constant refusal to debate in a honest manner, by not distorting your early position, by recognizing my corrections and by providing the "evidence", on whose existence you so much insist, but never managed to post.

[fkizz]

Catholic editions differentiate between Hebrew and Jew.
Am I suposed to say Catholic translations of the Bible are wrong because the Protestant edition movements said so? That's your demand.

This are my claims. Hebrew for Old Testament, Jew/Pharisee for New Testament.
Why Pharisee? Because their movement created the foundations for Rabbinical Judaism as known today. It's because of quality effect, not quantity effect.
Abulmecid, no offense but the your posts are going borderline autistic.

I made a simple claim of Catholic Bibles, they can be checked by anyone anywhere, I just re-checked them out of this posts, and it's there as I say. What is your point now?

What do you want else? I stand by every word.

Do you want me to quote Bible using the term "Hebrews" on Old Testament? Is that it? I honestly don't get it what's relevant for debate you raise anymore. Are you trying to de-rail from OP challenge?

Things I never said that you are giving me the strawman for:
-Pharisees is the exclusive term to refer to jews in the Bible
-The term Jew never appears in the Bible

Also changing on Bible Edition, you may find editions that differentiate between Hebrew/Jew, others don't. As I said, it's a Bible translation/edition contest from now on.

-------------
Old Testament using Hebrew (as opposed to Jew) in Catholic Portuguese version;

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Genesis 40;15

15.
Porque é por um rapto que fui tirado da terra dos hebreus, e aqui, igualmente, eu nada fiz para merecer a
prisão.”

Exodus 1;15

5. O rei do Egito dirigiu-se, igualmente, às parteiras dos hebreus uma se chamava Séfora e a outra, Fua),

Exodus 1;16

16.
e disse-lhes: Quando assistirdes às mulheres dos hebreus, e as virdes sobre o leito, se for um filho, atá-lo-
eis; mas se for uma filha, deixá-la-eis viver.

Exodus 1;19

19.
Porque, responderam elas ao faraó, as mulheres dos hebreus não são como as dos egípcios: elas são
vigorosas, e já dão à luz antes que chegue a parteira.

Exodus 2;6

6.
Abriu-a e viu dentro o menino que chorava. E compadeceu-se: “É um filho dos hebreus”, disse ela.

Exodus 2;7

7.
Veio então a irmã do menino e disse à filha do faraó: “Queres que vá procurar entre as mulheres dos
hebreus uma ama de leite para amamentar o menino?”

Exodus 2;13

13.
Saindo de novo no dia seguinte, viu dois hebreus que estavam brigando. E disse ao culpado: “Por que
feres o teu companheiro?”

Exodus 3;18

Eles ouvirão a tua voz. Irás então com os anciãos de Israel à presença do rei do Egito e lhe direis: o
Senhor, o Deus dos hebreus, nos apareceu. Deixa-nos, pois, ir para o deserto, a três dias de caminho, para
oferecer sacrifícios ao Senhor, nosso Deus.

Exodus 5;3

Eles prosseguiram: “O Deus dos hebreus nos apareceu. Deixa-nos ir ao deserto, a três dias de caminho, para
oferecer sacrifícios ao Senhor, para que não nos fira ele pela peste ou pela espada”

Exodus 7;16

16.

e dir-lhe-ás: o Senhor, o Deus dos hebreus, mandou-me a ti para dizer-te: deixa ir o meu povo, para que
me preste culto no deserto. Até agora não me escutaste.

Exodus 9;1

O Senhor disse a Moisés: “Vai procurar o faraó e dize-lhe: eis o que diz o Senhor, Deus dos hebreus: deixa
ir o meu povo, para que ele me preste um culto

Exodus 9;13

O Senhor disse a Moisés: “Tu te apresentarás amanhã cedo diante do faraó, e dir-lhe-ás: eis o que diz o
Senhor, Deus dos hebreus: deixa partir meu povo para que me preste um culto,

Exodus 10;3

Moisés e Aarão foram procurar o rei e disseram-lhe: “Eis o que diz o Senhor, Deus dos hebreus: até quando
recusarás humilhar-te diante de mim? Deixa ir o meu povo para que ele me preste o seu culto.

Exodus 13;19

Ora, não se encontrava um ferreiro em toda a terra de Israel, porque os filisteus diziam: Não deixemos que

os hebreus fabriquem espadas ou lanças.

Exodus 14;11

Então, mostraram-se ambos à guarnição dos filisteus. Estes disseram: Eis os hebreus que saem das

cavernas onde se tinham escondido.

Exodus 14;21

Os hebreus que tinham estado desde há muito tempo com os filisteus, e que os tinham seguido ao

acampamento, voltaram e puseram-se do lado dos israelitas que estavam com Saul e Jônatas.

Exodus 29;3

Os chefes dos filisteus disseram: Quem são esses hebreus? É Davi, respondeu Aquis, servo de Saul, rei de
Israel, que está em minha companhia há muitos dias, e mesmo há muitos anos. Nada tenho a censurar-lhe
desde o dia em que se refugiou junto de mim até hoje.

And so on. This are merely the first 2 books!
Just Exodus itself is enough to have a longpost, so I will stop here. Do you need more?
So yes, Bible does differentiate between Hebrews and Jews, QED.

This only does not happen on KJV and other Protestant versions.
Anyone who read the Latin origin Languages Catholic Editions would take it as self evident that the word Hebrew is extensively used..

Why differentiate Jew from Hebrew? Because it's what the Bible says. Someone interested in Catholicism will read the Catholic Bible. No apologies needed for that.

[Abdülmecid I]

What I want is not difficult to understand, so let's make a final (fourth!) try. I want you to support your claims that "Catholic" editions differentiate between Hebrew and Jew and that in the New Testament, there are only their Hebrew ancestors. By support, I would like you to provide an academic article or a citation from the Holy Scriptures corroborating your statements. Of course, for now, zero evidence has been forwarded, while I have personally offered to public scrutiny numerous quotations from both the Old and the New Testament, where the word Jew is employed and absolutely no differentiation between Hebrew and Jew takes place. By the way, don't worry, I'm not offended, but I must say I am indeed puzzled at your continued refusal to provide even a single quote that confirms your two positions, described above. I'm waiting patiently.

[fkizz]

I literally quoted the Bible using the term Hebrews instead of Jews;

We are discussing the contents of the Bible, and you consider quotations from the Bible as "0 proof". Then I can't do much to help you.
I could post a huge amount more of quotations of Bible using hebrews instead of jews, but you consider Bible quotations as 0 proof for discussion Bible contents. What can I do!

What type of quotations do you want about the Bible, if Bible quotations do not work? That's a very disonest and irrational debate you're pushing!

[Abdülmecid I]

Yeah, no, I'm sorry this obfuscating tactic of yours is not going to work in this particular debate. Nobody has denied that the word "Hebrew" has been frequently used. That hardly proves your points that biblical text differentiate between "Jew" and "Hebrew", each term addressing a different group and that, to directly quote yourself, "only Hebrews are in the New Testament". Of course, I have already provided numerous instances of "Jews" and "Hebrews" being used interchangeably and a small article explaining that these two words were essentially synonymous since at least the 6th century B.C. The reality remains that the "fun fact", which you obviously accepted uncritically, of a Christian blogger about Christians being older than modern Jews and Catholics more faithful at translating than Protestants is fantasy.

P.S. To give you some advice, a good start would be a passage that includes both terms in a contrasting manner. It's not an irrefutable indication, but it will be something, contrary to your random quotes from the Exodus. I would start by adding both terms in the search engine. That's the first result:

that each man should set free his male servant and each man his female servant, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman; so that no one should keep them, a Jew, his brother, in bondage.

In Portuguese, a language which seems to enjoy some unprecedented levels of credibility in this debate:

para que cada um libertasse o seu escravo, e cada um a sua escrava, hebreu ou hebréia, de maneira que ninguém se servisse mais dos judeus, seus irmãos, como escravos.

I think this beautiful quote is a great way to close our discussion. Apparently, the Lord himself uses the word Jewish to describe a couple of Hebrews.

[sumskilz]

In the Hebrew Bible, there is a definite pattern to the usage of the term ᶜiḇrî (Hebrew). Almost all the occurrences are in stories set before the establishment of the monarchy. It's usually used as a self-description when talking to foreigners. Although in law codes, which are probably Judahite in origin, but are inserted into stories that are set earlier, it's meant to refer to people of both Judah and Israel. It wouldn't make sense to use the term yəhūḏ (Jew) in the stories that are set earlier than the end of Solomon's reign, except to refer to a member of the tribe of yəhūḏāh (Judah), because according to the biblical narrative, there was no separate Kingdom of Judah yet. The Kingdom of Judah, is called as such, because its core area was the land of the Tribe of Judah. According to tradition and the biblical text, the people of the Tribe of Judah are patrilineally descended from Judah, the son of yaᶜăqōḇ (Jacob). Jacob is Israel. As mentioned earlier in the thread, after the Assyrian destruction of the Kingdom of Israel, the Kingdom of Judah became undisputed center of Yahweh worship and so the national name slowly became synonymous with the state religion and ethnicity. The core region of Judah continued to be called as such under the Babylonians, Persians, and so forth, until the kingdom was reestablished under the Hasmoneans.

Prior to the Seventh Century BCE, all Jews are Hebrews, but not all Hebrews are Jews. By the Fourth Century BCE, the terms Jew and Hebrew appear to be synonymous, in Hebrew and Aramaic texts anyway. If there was a distinction in Greek, I don't know anything about it. I could imagine it, something like referring to Hebrew Christians rather Jewish Christians or something of that sort. I've just never heard of that being the case.

[fkizz]

In the Hebrew Bible, there is a definite pattern to the usage of the term ᶜiḇrî (Hebrew). Almost all the occurrences are in stories set before the establishment of the monarchy. [...]It wouldn't make sense to use the term yəhūḏ (Jew) in the stories that are set earlier than the end of Solomon's reign, except to refer to a member of the tribe of yəhūḏāh (Judah), because according to the biblical narrative, there was no separate Kingdom of Judah yet. The Kingdom of Judah, is called as such, because its core area was the land of the Tribe of Judah. According to tradition and the biblical text, the people of the Tribe of Judah are patrilineally descended from Judah, the son of yaᶜăqōḇ (Jacob). Jacob is Israel. As mentioned earlier in the thread, after the Assyrian destruction of the Kingdom of Israel,

Great information, my utmost respect.

the Kingdom of Judah became undisputed center of Yahweh worship and so the national name slowly became synonymous with the state religion and ethnicity. The core region of Judah continued to be called as such under the Babylonians, Persians, and so forth, until the kingdom was reestablished under the Hasmoneans.

Prior to the Seventh Century BCE, all Jews are Hebrews, but not all Hebrews are Jews. By the Fourth Century BCE, the terms Jew and Hebrew appear to be synonymous, in Hebrew and Aramaic texts anyway. If there was a distinction in Greek, I don't know anything about it. I could imagine it, something like referring to Hebrew Christians rather Jewish Christians or something of that sort. I've just never heard of that being the case.

Well, even the Judaism movement differentiates Hebrews from Jews, so why wouldn't the Catholic Bible do the same? If the criteria are more complex as our expert Sumkillz explains, and likely different from the criteria used in Judaism, I can delve deeper, the thing remains I (and many other people involved) grew up to hearing the term "Hebrews" in Old Testament Bible when refering to the ancestors of Jews, and Jews to a more modern setting. This in Roman Catholicism classes. .

Pharisees becomes highly popularized due to its ties of Rabbinical Judaism that would survive until today.

I can research more into the existant differentiation of Hebrew and Jew in the Bible, I'm humble enough for that, but keep in mind the differentiation does not discredit in any way or form that Jews today don't have a connection, be it religious or genetic, or both, to the hebrews of the past. That's taken for obvious.


@Abdulmecid I,

Even Jews differentiate between Hebrew and Jew. Catholics doing it is no "anti-semitic conspiracy", we're just following our tune.

Also you just said that Bible quotations are invalid, but you keep posting them, so I guess they are only valid when post them? I have a high number of quotations as hebrew left if you want them posted.

Yeah, no, I'm sorry this obfuscating tactic of yours is not going to work in this particular debate. Nobody has denied that the word "Hebrew" has been frequently used. That hardly proves your points that biblical text differentiate between "Jew" and "Hebrew"

Sorry as Sumskillz pointed out, there are historical reasons for even jews to differentiate between Jew and Hebrew.
You accused me of being some christian anti semite fanatic simply for pointing out something that even jews acknowledge in their oen way. Why wouldn't they? It's part of their history.
They can't call themselves "Jews" when kingdom of Judeah wasn't avaliable. No anti-semitism in that.

Catholics noticed such trends and included differentiation of Hebrew and Jew as well. Why would Jews be offended at being called Hebrew? Their prefered language name is the following: Hebrew.

[Abdülmecid I]

Don't try to twist his words, fkizz. Sumskilz explicitly clarified that, since the 4th century, the two terms appear to be synonymous. How does this clear statement does not contradict your claim that in the New and Old Testaments, there is a differentiation between Hebrew and Jew? Many texts of the first one and obviously everything from the second one are written after that date. As numerous citations of the New Testament prove, Jews freely called themselves as Jews, several decades after the extinction of the Kingdom of Judea (check Acts 14:1-2). Not very surprising considering that self-identifications are hardly linked to political entities, as many Hellenes, Thracians, Illyrians, Gauls and Iberians of the 2nd century AD would testify. The quote from the Acts also undermines your argument that this alleged differentiation, directly disputed by sumskilz's sentence you underlined and praised, is based on the stance towards Jesus, because every member of the synagogue in Iconium is called as a Jew, regardless of whether he endorsed or rejected the apostolic message. Also, who no comment about poor Jeremiah?

Prior to the Seventh Century BCE, all Jews are Hebrews, but not all Hebrews are Jews. By the Fourth Century BCE, the terms Jew and Hebrew appear to be synonymous, in Hebrew and Aramaic texts anyway. If there was a distinction in Greek, I don't know anything about it. I could imagine it, something like referring to Hebrew Christians rather Jewish Christians or something of that sort. I've just never heard of that being the case.

My impression is that the identification of the "Hebrew" with the "Jew" term was a gradual procedure that began in the 6th century, when Palestine remained under the control of foreign empires for four centuries without interruption. It first appeared among various foreigners, from whom it passed to the Jewish with the strongest contact with them (e.g. immigrants in Babylonia or merchants in commercial hubs). From them, it steadily influenced the rest of the society, until approximately the fall of the Achaemenids, when the two terms were almost universally recognized as synonymous. By the way, I don't really have a concrete answer to your question about the Greek language, but a quick search in the epigraphical data reveals that both terms were used. However, Ιουδαίος and its derivatives seem noticeably more popular, especially considering that more than half of the "Hebrew" inscriptions are coming from Italy. Finally, the members of the synagogue are called both as Hebrews (in Philadelphia and Corinth) and as Jews.

[fkizz]

I didn't twist his words. You said I was a christian anti-semitic fanatic for the differentation I was making between jews and hebrews (when in fact, it comes from the Bible) and also said I didn't "obviously" didn't read the Bible.
You also pretended that I said Jews are refered to as exclusively pharisees, among countless other strawmans where it seems your posts are here to drain patience rather than to discussing information or ethics, no offense.

My points were that Catholic Bibles do make a case for differentiation between Jews and Hebrews. I proved it true with quoting from the scriptures, mainly Exodus (on the following post you said I had posting nothing from the scriptures).

Later Sumskillz appears saying that jews in their texts also have said differentiation, between Jews and Hebrews. This kinda makes your claim that me claiming such distinction is due to my christian anti-semitic fanatic intentions look even more ridiculous than it already was.
So now that the epic drama has ended, I hope normal discussion can be restored to the thread.

[Elfdude]

Ugh this thread is terrible. The OP's post asserts that we cannot use inductive reasoning to answer philosophical questions. That philosophical truth must extend from the top down necessarily. This is only true if you believe truth is absolute and cannot be approximated through a best fit approach. Utilizing a best-fit approach is prone to error but that error can be refit and refit and refit as data is accrued, essentially the only philosophical questions that modern science and philosophy can't answer today are those questions which exist entirely within the theoretical and have no basis on reality. In which case who gives a flying turdbag? Fundamentally the assertion of a higher anything to deduct any reasoning from is at best conceited, and at worst absolutely wrong. There's no reason to presume any deductive starting point is anything other than imagination or fantasy. My value of life is based upon my value of human accomplishment and appreciation for the nearly infinite nature of potential which is engendered by our mind, I need no other reason to value life, and I need no other reason to value morality than my value of life.

The assertion that atheists are of moderate intelligence and are uneducated philosophically is also utterly wrong. Atheists are typically far better educated philosophically than their counterparts. In fact the easiest way to make an atheist is to invest in philosophical knowledge. Take your superior deductive reasoning skills back to where it belongs, kindergarten fantasy on the playground.

[basics]

Gentlemen,

Calm down and look to the Scriptures, to the context and flow of them, and there you will find the answer. In Jesus' day, Biblically speaking, the term Jew that He used was to determine all those that opposed Him and consequently His church. To Him these were the lost souls that He came to save and to whom He left His disciples, or at least some of them, to continue His work amongst them. Paul put great emphasis on that as he made a point of going into the synagogues first in each place he went. The thing is that all these peoples were only there because of the dispersions that God allowed for their disobedience. The point is that they are all Jewish stemming from the lands that God gave each tribe. Now why that is important is because despite their religion and its different departments, the word of God was carried by them into these foreign places to compete against the religions that were there. Notice that in the Bible God always authenticates things by two and this He was doing by the dispersions and the missionaries that followed beginning with the original disciples of which if you remember were twelve plus seventy.

Today of course Israel is predominantly Ashkenazi in control with the originals in lesser number and among all of them are many different language dialects spoken plus political aspirations argued over as well as different beliefs, but the one thing that binds them together is that they are all Israeli Jews.

[Sir Adrian]

That philosophical truth must extend from the top down necessarily. This is only true if you believe truth is absolute and cannot be approximated through a best fit approach.

Truth IS absolute and singular by definition, if it is changing then it is no longer truth. 2+2 can only ever equal 4, it can't equal both 3 and 4 no matter how hard you try. God can either exist or he cannot, you can't say god exists but only sort of. Similarly you cannot approximate 2+2 to 9 because 4 and 9 kind look similar. You may approximate a personal understanding of the truth, and that may evolve in time to multiple points of understanding of the same truth but that should only be a tool of discovering philosophical truth, not the final form of philosophical truth.

[Gaidin]

Truth IS absolute and singular by definition, if it is changing then it is no longer truth. 2+2 can only ever equal 4, it can't equal both 3 and 4 no matter how hard you try. God can either exist or he cannot, you can't say god exists but only sort of. Similarly you cannot approximate 2+2 to 9 because 4 and 9 kind look similar. You may approximate a personal understanding of the truth, and that may evolve in time to multiple points of understanding of the same truth but that should only be a tool of discovering philosophical truth, not the final form of philosophical truth.

Ironically....2, 4, and 9 are defined values based on the set you are using and its axioms. Same for the operations axiomatically assumed to be performed within that set. It's not really that hard to dick around with math and screw around with the heads of people that have no education in it. Of course since these are human invented 'objects' and not really 'truths'( or more 'facts') that you seem to be interested in, you may want to be steering your argument in a different direction.

[Sir Adrian]

Math is not a human invention though. It is the underlying fabric of the entire universe. The absolute truth as it were. If two trees catch fire in a forest and the fire spreads to two more trees there will 4 trees on fire regardless of whether there are any humans around, humans even evolved yet or have long since been extinct.

There is the theory that something does not exist unless it is observed, and that does have a bit of credence from the qantum level, but it just means that truth does not exist since everything in this universe is dependent on the manner in which you observe it

[Gaidin]

Math is not a human invention though. It is the underlying fabric of the entire universe. The absolute truth as it were. If two trees catch fire in a forest and the fire spreads to two more trees there will 4 trees on fire regardless of whether there are any humans around, humans even evolved yet or have long since been extinct.

There is the theory that something does not exist unless it is observed, and that does have a bit of credence from the qantum level, but it just means that truth does not exist since everything in this universe is dependent on the manner in which you observe it

Yes. Math is a human invention. We literally came up with the rules for different kinds of numbers. From group theory to ring theory to field theory. Depending on which of these you are looking at and which theory you delve into, Q is one but not the other. Z is all of them. R is one of them. But to figure out what Real numbers were, to figure out what Complex numbers actually were, to figure out what Rational numbers actually were, we had to figure out what the axioms we were fundamentally assuming, and what they led to; and researchers still figure out new things they lead to.

We didn't just handwave this crap as physically there. Remember. Zero had to be invented by the Olmecs. The Greeks were too busy asking "How can nothing be something?"

Math is a set of assumptions and rules. And you run with it daily. Mathematicians make careers out of figuring out new and useful theory, and inventing new and useful theory. But it is way off the deep end of this...'underlying fabric' of the universe.

[fkizz]

Yes. Math is a human invention. We literally came up with the rules for different kinds of numbers.

What about Natural Numbers?

[basics]

Gaidin,

Explain then how mathematics had to be on the go as it were so that our planet could bear life if it were the case maths had to wait for humans to invent it? Would it not be correct to say that humans discovered maths through all that surrounded them rather than them inventing them?