LOL
Math is one of the few concepts that is truly OBJECTIVE, IMMUTABLE AND UNIVERSAL. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of its operation can reach the SAME MATHEMATICAL CONCLUSIONS, anytime, anywhere. It doesn't matter how many fingers you have (which I imagine would determine one's predisposition to a number system), the value and properties of numbers and their operation remain the same. That means, pi, or the natural logarithmic base e, and a host of transcendental numbers are non-repeating, non-terminating, transendental numbers in base 2, 3, 10 or n number system.
And if something that is as objective, immutable and universal as math still doesn't exist, then what the hell does, eh?
Oh, and btw, aside from descarte's contribution to math (more specifically, the cartesian coordinate system), I think very little of him as a philosopher.
Good to see you answer your own question. If the first cause came from some other cause, then it wouldn't be the FIRST, now, would it?
What are you talking about??? Negative logic is ALWAYS used in math.
Not at all.
Either the first cause is true or its contradiction (an infinite chain of causality or an infinite regress) is true. They cannot both be true.
But, we have already postulated the operation of causality, haven't we? It is EXPLICIT when you keep asking - where is the evidence? And for every cause, it has another cause, and another, and another unitl hell freezes over. At some point, you must reach an UNCAUSED CAUSE. And such a cause is said to be NECESSARY, because it could NEVER BE OTHERWISE.
The same reasoning can be said about dividing a finite object. At some point, you get something that is INDIVISIBLE. Otherwise, you will wind up with an infinite number of pieces of nothing.
That god exists.
Sigh.
Perception is utterly subjective. And because it is subjective, some human knowledge, naturally, are subjective as well. Add this subjectivity with a couple of thousand years of oral tradition and you have an iota of objective truth mixed in with a ton of subjective perceptions.
Now, do you throw away a ton of subjectivity, along with an ounce of objective truth, or do you painstakingly sift through the muck. Some people, just for the sake of knowing, would do the latter alternative. If you are inclined to the former, then what the hell is that gray matter between your ears for? Excess baggage?
