So does Plato prove that math demonstrates God's existence?

[Anonymous No.14705034]

Since math can only exist as a metaphysical form (empirically verifying math's existence is impossible), wouldn't the existence of any metaphysical form prove that an absolute and perfect form exist? And wouldn't that perfect form have all the traits that the west has traditionally assigned to God? Talking about phaedo here btw

[Anonymous No.14705043]

I used math as an example since it's something that's so obviously real despite being empirically unverifiable.

[Anonymous No.14705063]

>>14705034
Maths are just a model we came um with for the study of quantities. It's not based on reality. Also, helenoids had a different understanding of maths than what is accepted today. Read about Göedel Incompleteness

[Anonymous No.14705068]

>>14705063
Define "came up with" and explain how it isn't a metaphysical phenomenon

[Anonymous No.14705071]

yes but the dialogue you are looking for is the meno

[Anonymous No.14705096]

>>14705071
You're right, I mixed the two up in my head.

[Anonymous No.14705135]

>>14705096
>>14705071
I was really scratching my head at this thinking what the fuck phaedo has to do with this.

[Anonymous No.14705159]

What if math is a realm that can be accessed through thought, and by thinking about math we are engaging with that realm. Wouldn't that make math empirical? This would hinge on thought being a mode of experience, a mode in which we experience the "thought-realm" (not to be confused with the "thot-realm", may God preserve us from such a place).

[Anonymous No.14705187]

>>14705159
Then one wonders if our thoughts are material

[Anonymous No.14706016]

bump

[Anonymous No.14706031]

>>14705187
if we have immortal souls/minds like plato thought, this makes no sense

[Anonymous No.14706032]

>>14705034
But mathematical objects are not forms in Plato’s philosophy. They have an inferior ontological status below the forms but above sensibles. So we can’t even start to address the rest of your post because it is based on a false start.

[Anonymous No.14706057]

>>14706032
this is highly debatable. i'm not sure how to read the divided line without understanding mathematicals to be forms. or the meno.

[Anonymous No.14706086]

>>14706057
>this is highly debatable
Not really. This is a standard reading from at least the Neoplatonists. But could make a case if you can defend.

[Anonymous No.14706117]

>>14706086
my case is that socrates treats anamnesis of mathematicals and geometricals seriously in the meno and the republic. that requires that they are forms. i've read my proclus, but i would not take him as authoritative for plato.

[Anonymous No.14706133]

>>14705034
See the Pythagoreans, Sacred Geometry, Da Vinci

[Anonymous No.14706640]

>>14705159
>What if math is a realm that can be accessed through thought, and by thinking about math we are engaging with that realm
thats literally the metaphysical realm plato is talking about you mongoloid
why the fuck are you talking about a philosophy you obviously havent read?

[Anonymous No.14706841]

>>14706640
He's talking about a physical realm as opposed to Plato's metaphysical realm, you overconfident ape. Stop shitting threads up when you're incapable of understanding the posts you reply to

[Anonymous No.14706857]

Another obvious view on this is that math is imposed upon reality by the structure of the mind, taking in the manifold of experience and organizing it according to space and time. The Kantian view is not that math is "out there" but "necessarily in there".

[Anonymous No.14706897]

To the point. No math doesn’t prove God’s existence, hence nobody ever used that argument. Because there are so many ways simpler to account for mathematics. Even the Aristotelians Scholastics, who believed in proofs of God’s existence, thought that mathematics were just mental abstractions of the physical world. Let alone nominalists, empiricists, transcendental philosophers, etc.

[Anonymous No.14706912]

>>14706897
Rationalists, Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, Descartes and Leibniz were mathematicians, didn’t think mathematics were a proof of God’s existence.

[Anonymous No.14707049]

>>14706897
>>14706912
I'm not arguing that math, as an abstract and immaterial thing, is proof of a creator. My point is that since math is so obviously immaterial, it proves that immaterial forms exist, which obviously proves God as the ultimate and perfect form.
>nominalists
They reject math absolutely as a result of rejecting universals, regardless.
>empiricists
Math has never been demonstrated empirically.
>transcendental philosophers
Kant, pre COPR, formulated a transcendental argument using math as an example of transcendental truths that require a 'lawgiver', for instance.

[Anonymous No.14707073]

>>14707049
Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly. My point is that there are simpler ways of accounting for mathematics than committing onelsef to Plato's theory of forms (and thus the rest of the argument leading to the "proof" of God). You may not agree with nominalism but there is definitely a nominalist theory of mathematics, etc.

[Anonymous No.14707086]

>>14707073
So that even if your argument from forms to God's existence were rock solid people could just get around it by not accepting the theory of forms to being with.

[Anonymous No.14707094]

>>14707073
>>14707086
Setting Plato aside, I would wager that any philosophical system that posits that metaphysical things exist would work for demonstrating God. For instance, as argued by Augustine, existence is the same thing as goodness, which means that it logically follows that the maximal metaphysical thing (God) exists if any metaphysical thing exists.

[Anonymous No.14707100]

>>14707094
And math would be the thing that demonstrates a metaphysical thing exists.

[Anonymous No.14707168]

>>14707094
Then change what I said about Plato's theory of forms to existence of metaphysical things. People will still get around that if they don't want to believe in God.

[Anonymous No.14707189]

>>14707168
Yes, but math is explicitly a metaphysical thing that remains undemonstrated empirically.

[Anonymous No.14707282]

>>14707189
If you say so.

Also if you're into that check out Bayes
https://qz.com/1315731/the-most-important-formula-in-data-science-was-first-used-to-prove-the-existence-of-god/

[Anonymous No.14707628]

If you will entertain a sood like myself for just a moment, could anon please explain to me how math isn't 'real' or it's not empirically verifiable.
If I take a rock, and put it next to another rock, that's one rock and now two. Two more rocks and there's four. Get enough, and you're doing times tables. Seems empirical.
Or am I massively misinterpreting the point?

[Anonymous No.14708156]

>>14706841
How is the realm of thought physical? Congrats on making him look more retarded

[Anonymous No.14708398]

>>14707628
you abstract a concept of four from the rocks which exists independently of any concrete examples, including the rocks

[Anonymous No.14708566]

>>14705063
>Maths are just a model we came um with
>the study of quantities
>It's not based on reality.
>different understanding
>Göedel
>quantity
OH NO NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.14709545]

>>14708566
Based.

[Anonymous No.14709649]

>>14705187
Thoughts are the first level of materialization of consciousness followed by words then actions.

Talking out of my ass here.

[Simon Magus !!B6w9tJAyfF8 No.14710834]

>>14705034
How did he do that? Did he prove the existence of God with analytical geometry?

[Anonymous No.14711048]

I just don’t read Plato’s religious shit

[Anonymous No.14711648]

>>14705034
Hmm. God certainly seems to work at first glace as maths does. God is a concept, it provides a system which if followed (much like maths) should give results (eternal life, happiness). God is more of a abstraction of the moral world( or life in general) as opposed to maths which is a abstraction of the material world.