>math is the language of the universe
>the natural numbers start with one
Does that prove that monotheism is true? Is there a logical fallacy here?
Interesting question — you're touching on a mix of metaphysics, math, and religious philosophy. Let's break this down carefully and see if there's a logical fallacy or flawed assumption.
---
The Claim:
> "Math is the language of the universe. The natural numbers start with one. Therefore, monotheism is true."
---
Step-by-Step Analysis:
1. "Math is the language of the universe" — Generally accepted metaphorically.
This is a poetic way to say: mathematics models physical reality extremely well.
But it’s still a human-constructed formal system used to describe nature — not a "language" in the literal, conscious sense.
2. "Natural numbers start with one" — Depends on convention.
In some definitions, natural numbers start with 1 (1, 2, 3...).
In others (especially in computer science and set theory), they start with 0 (0, 1, 2...).
So, the idea that nature necessarily starts counting with 1 is not objectively true — it’s a convention.
3. "Therefore, monotheism is true" — This is a non sequitur.
This is a logical fallacy: the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.
You are going from an abstract system (math) and a human convention (starting at 1) to a metaphysical claim (existence of one god).
This is a category error: you're conflating mathematical order with theological reality.
---
The Fallacy in Logic Terms:
Non sequitur: the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
Equivocation: "one" in math ≠ "One God" in theology.
False analogy: comparing the start of number systems to religious truth is an invalid analogy.
Possibly begging the question if one assumes the starting point has significance because of the desired religious conclusion.
---
Summary:
> No, this argument does not prove that monotheism is true.
Yes, there is a logical fallacy — it’s a non sequitur and possibly a category error.
However, if someone wanted to argue symbolically or poetically that “oneness” in mathematics resonates with monotheism, that’s a **subjective metaph
If zero is not a natural it is unnatural.
Having zero of something is unnatural.
OP is currently having 2 cocks inside him. Devolving into an unnatural state must be prevented at all cost.
>>24549451>But it’s still a human-constructed formal system used to describe natureThis just begs the question re nominalism.
>>24549490>>24549182 (OP)It can start from either. Whatever you prefer.
>>24549565Different anon here. The natural numbers without zero is an outdated concept, akin to phlogiston or the luminiferous aether.
>>24549565thus disproving OP's reasoning as arbitrary
>>24549588They are not an "outdated concept" because they are the same concept. Axiomatically, both are equivalent. The distinction only comes when you are defining addition, but that is not in the Peano axioms of natural numbers.
>>24549182 (OP)There's no logical fallacy because there's no argument.
To quote that professor: what you said isn't even wrong.
>>24549182 (OP)When philosophers like Descartes call math a language of metaphysics what they mean is that math is the only thing you can’t possibly pick apart as a falsehood. Real life in front of you is illusory but 2 and 2 still equals 4 so that means math has a more grounded basis in the One.
>>24550009Math relies on blindly accepting various axioms
>>24549182 (OP)>a triangle has three angles>a triangle is one shapeTrinity proven. Heretics btfo.
>>24549182 (OP)Numbers start at number 2, fight me
>>24549182 (OP)>math is the language of the universeI would like to drink -i cups of water, please.
>>24550043Shitty threads deserve shitty AI responses
>>24549741>The distinction only comes when you are defining additionNo, zero is also quite important in multiplication to show when you aren't adding anything.
>>24550009>2 and 2 still equals 4No, 2 AND 2 can equal 2 while 2 plus 2 can equal 11, its not always 4.
>>24549182 (OP)Natural numbers starting with one (which is already disputed as other anons have posted) doesn't automatically prove anything. However, you're still on to something anon, mathematical realism is often cited within Christian apologetics.
The concept of unity and its use in theology have long been pondered since before Christianity, it's a very important thing to have an understanding of as many great theological books make use of it
>>24549182 (OP)>math is the language of the universe.False. Relationships are the language of language and the nature of the universe. And relationality implies multiplicity. Incels like you wouldn't understand.
>>24549182 (OP)montheism is more like saying that the 1 drawn as it appears now is the only True one, capish?
>>24549182 (OP)>Is there a logical fallacy here?Yes, and it's:-
>math is the language of the universeNo it isn't. It's an invention of humans.
All mathematical systems are founded on unproven assumptions (axioms). Therefore maths isn't even objective. And the universe doesn't give a fuck.
>>24549451People should be ashamed to post AI gen output like this. What the fuck is wrong with you? Why are you even on the site?
>>24553676i gotta say i'm not mad about it on this occasion. OP's being dumb. he doesn't deserve a human response.
>>24549182 (OP)No. Numbers start with 0 or 1 because humans begin by conceiving of things as either existing or not existing. All mathematical operations are grounded in these two numbers—the natural numbers are made by adding 1 repeatedly, the integers by including the additive inverses, the rational numbers by including the multiplicative inverses, the real numbers by including the limits of the rationals, and so on.
At the end of the day, it reflects the fact that human reasoning is built on a simple, binary foundation.
>>24553784They start with magnitude
>>24549182 (OP)Natural numbers do, nature doesn't. There's no beginning and no end, both extremes are infinite.
>>24552448Refuted by Saint Gregory of Nyssa and Saint Maximus. The One is Three and the Three are the One "in which we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).
