Question that arose in religion debate today?

No it isn't. Math is a language used to describe hard functions.

Is god real because the English language exists, too?

Math is a logical system. Yes, certain things are accepted in math utterly without proof. And many things are simply defined to be true.

But one of the differences between math and religion is that math does not purport to directly describe the real world. There is no 'two' anywhere. You can have two OF something, but 'two' itself is an abstract concept. It's a mental tool we use to handle mental concepts.

And the reason why we accept all those made-up rules is that as a tool it works pretty well. It doesn't work for everything (you can't use math to win a spelling bee), but it can tell us how certain concepts are interrelated in ways that work really, really well.

Now, there are people who PLAY with math. Who choose to assume different things, or who just make games with relating things together. But play math isn't used for real things because it doesn't work. If you assume that pi is exactly 3 and then try and build a building with that, your building will probably fall over. As a tool for describing relationships of quantities, it will have failed.

You see the same kinds of things happen with language. Language is also entirely made up, has rules that don't have to be so, and there are people who make up whole languages on their own. And you can invent your own system of grammar or words, but again they won't be of any use to you unless someone else agrees to use them too. As a tool for communication, it will have failed.

So now we come back to religion. Obviously some people are happy with their religion, and just as obviously they aren't all happy with the same religion, nor is everyone happy with religion. It usually purports to be a tool for ethics and a description of the supernatural. So the least we can say is that as the former, it is not universal. But then, neither is any one language.

Still, this might help us frame religion. It doesn't seem to be objectively verified in the way that some (not ALL) math is. That doesn't mean that it's not subjectively valuable... just that it's a different kind of thing.

While many mathematical elements originated from the Middle East, such as algebra, and the concept of "0" (not to mention the characters we still use for the numbers themselves) a lot of other concepts came out of ancient Greece and Rome, such as logic, and geometry.

Math is not "made up". I can prove that the concept of counting exists, and that the basic mathematical operations - addition, subtraction, multiplication and division - also exist.

If I put a single apple on your desk and ask how many apples are on your desk, what are you going to say? The actual sound you make or character you draw to indicate the concept of a single item doesn't matter, nor does it change the reality that there is an object on your desk and that we can describe its quantity.

So math wasn't "made up" - it was discovered. Even before you had learned about math, you could still draw a circle, yes? Just because you lack the language or knowledge to more accurately describe that object doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Your friend is mixing concepts here. Math is not some imaginary idea.

That's a massively failed analogy. Mathematics is based on axioms, things that are self-evidently true. Also, maths wasn't invented by anyone. 2+2 does not equal 4 because humans say so, but because of how reality works. Stories concocted during the bronze age are not made of axioms.

"we still make mathematical 'proofs' and believe that the number 1 is in fact the number 1 by pure

faith."

1 is 1 because of how the number 1 is defined, not because of faith. Any maths equation can be verified by anyone.

"He is trying to argue that, since mathematics is based upon something that someone made up a long time ago, we still make mathematical 'proofs' and believe that the number 1 is in fact the number 1 by pure faith."

Math is descriptive, not prescriptive.

"1" is simply the symbol we use to describe the aspect of "one". We made up the number "1", but we didn't invent the abstract "1".

There is 1 star in the Solar System, regardless of whether there is anyone to define "1".

There is really no end of debating when discussing belief systems.

The fact is that humans rely on experiential "evidence" for their beliefs.

The "math argument" becomes even more complicated since synergy entered the equation changing and no longer meaning that 1+1=2 ALL the time. (Even though it's a financial term, it still means that the sum is greater than the combined individual parts.)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/synergy

And acting Christian will have more experience of the operational qualities of the Kingdom of God in their life than a non-Christian or a Christian by mouth only.

It's kind of like having a debate about "X-Corporation." It's all over the news about how they treat workers unfairly. If you don't work for them, you might be inclined to believe story after story. And if your friend works for that company & has been treated well, they will likely argue that it's a great company to work for. But what if your friend is working for the ONE store in that whole chain who has the greatest store manager who has brought the best worker package the company has to offer, yet the other 999 stores treat employees badly? You're friend will only base their knowledge on their EXPERIENCE.

I think that is how Christianity works. If a person is not living it, then they really have no 1st hand knowledge of what it's about. That includes those who only go to church once a week out of guilt and do no more.

A person familiar with the common thread throughout all of the teachings can start to see patterns that show what if figurative, literal or both.

It's also like when Tom Brokaw did his piece on "The Greatest Generation." As a reporter, he did a good job in retelling war stories, but it will never be as affective as hearing what war is like directly from someone who was there on D-Day.

In MY opinion only....

I think the bible may be based in some fact, but more of it is "fictional" because of the time between any event & the time it was written about..there is a loss of fact.

However....in the case of math...it could be called "fiction" for lack of a better word.

It`s "made up" but is ACCEPTED as a factual FORMULA to express a numerical concept.

It is a language of numbers [thus making all written language fiction,bible written in fictional language].

The #1 is not a number because of faith, but one of FACT because of the "accepted concept" which makes math a nearly "perfect language"....not fictional.

But that`s just MY opinion.

Math arose in the middle east around 2000 years ago??? Thats news to me... I didnt realize that, before the Arabs, not a single person in the world had any idea how to count or measure things...

To correct you, the concept of ZERO was invented in the middle east around 2000 years ago. Not math itself.

That said, math is a language. The Bible is compilation of stories. This is like comparing apples to fictional oranges. And, you got all discombobulated by his trickery. Next time, ask him to stick to the subject and not try to get all philosophical by comparing religion to math.

Maths is not an invention. No one "made it up."

We just discovered it in the natural world, like we discovered say, the electromagnetic spectrum. It's always been there. It didn't materialise just because we located it.

Mathematics is the language of nature, all we did was tap into it bit by bit through arithmetic during the ancient world.

We have our own symbolism for it, but that's only for our convenience.

If all human civilisation vanished tomorrow, mathematics will still be there.

If another intelligent race came to evolve - they would rediscover all the great mathematical works of Pythagoras, Euclid, Newton Leibniz etc. bit by bit just by observing the natural world and well...in a phrase... "doing the math!" Basically, even if all science is lost, it is based on maths so it can just be rediscovered again, even if it takes thousands of years.

However if all knowledge of the bible was lost, or the Quoran etc. then it's lost forever. No one could coincidentally rewrite it word for word.

Math, like any other idea, comes from the mind of man. This is the view of people who think math is _created_.

Some think Math is discovered (it already exists). That something exists outside man does not imply a creator, much more a divinity, much more a personal God.

Something not made by humans is considered a part of nature.

Tell him to read Reason for God by Timothy Keller. He will then be able to be more challenging for you.

I would point out to said silly person that math was not invented. It was discovered. Even before humans existed, two planets plus two planets would result in four planets whether anybody knew about it or not.