Yes and how it does that to be specific. The universe emerges from a few basic physical forces in a mathematically orderly fashion. When we listen to a symphony we don't say we are listening to bunch of people playing physical instruments. We are listening to music the mathematical harmonic progression of sound waves.
The universe emerges directly from the few (four, to be precise) basic physical forces. The universe is orderly because there are only four forces. You don't need to qualify that they're mathematical, or that they're orderly. That's redundant. That's pointing at the map instead of the territory.
You mean you agree except that I am being redundant? No, it's translating natural universal values and functions. IMO. Drawing maps is cartography, but yes maps are mathematical in structure and pattern, as is everything else, a translation of the way natural physical phenomena become expressed. Strange, the OP question if there is "evidence that god is real". There is no evidence of any kind. Yet , if we ask if there is "evidence that universal mathematics are real", we see mathematics "everywhere" Anyway, I don't want to hijack the thread, so I'll sit back awhile.
No You're talking about physics but calling it math, as if math is reality. Math is our description of the physics.
A very fitting point you make. Except not we. You see math in everything - exactly the way a theist sees God in everything. I guess it's your religion.
Except that Mathematical values and functions are the way NATURE orders itself (a self- ordering system), whereas God is a different beast altogether. Religious people believe there is are divine god ordered universe. Spiritual Universal Mechanics. I believe there is a mathematically ordered universe. Mathematical Universal Mechanics. Difference. But belief in natural mathematical values and functions is the opposite of religious belief. There is no evidence of a god, but there is overwhelming evidence of natural mathematical functions.
You are too close to this to see that you are behaving exactly like this is a religion for you. - you see it as the root cause of all things - you never miss an opportunity to bring it up, no matter what is being talked about - you see it as the one answer to every possible question. I am complicit in these routine derailings because I'm foolish enough to take the bait every time you throw it out. If this is all you have to talk about, then we have nothing more to talk about.
Mathematics is an abstraction. It is not an "orderly process." Of course. They are constant values. They can be expressed in base 10, base 16, even Roman numerals. Their value does not change. ?? They are not lying. They are learning more about the universe and the natural laws that govern it. Those can be expressed through math. However, they are not math; they are natural laws. Your claim is akin to saying that human rights are alphanumeric characters, because the Bill of Rights was written in alphanumeric characters. And in any case, still no evidence of God.
I agree. I was just trying to head off any conclusion that just because our Sciforums theists can't provide the desired evidence, that the desired evidence doesn't exist. I don't think that any of our theists are particularly skilled in philosophical theology, which doesn't necessarily imply anything about philosophical theology. I don't think that most of our atheists are a whole lot more sophisticated, so I also hoped to present them with a challenge, a bone for them to chew on. Great. You are one of the brighter bulbs around here, so I hoped that you would reply. I'll have to respond to your post with multiple posts, so I'll address it topic by topic. Theoretical physics isn't just a set of variables (including the constants that fine-tuning arguments seem to want to treat as variables), it's a whole bunch of mathematical functions (quiet down W4U) that relate the variables to one another in formal ways. What's more, the fine-tuning theorists always seem to assume that while they can allow the constants to vary in their speculations, the rest of their wonderful mathematical apparatus remains invariant. But why should we assume that? My biggest objection to the fine-tuning arguments is that they seem to be aimed at duplicating this particular universe. So of course if you change anything fundamental about physics, you are unlikely to get the same universe. The deeper issue is whether life could form in another universe where physics is significantly different. That needn't be our familiar Earth life, it only needs to be any kind of self-reproducing structure subject to natural selection. I can imagine an alternative universe in which our stars, atoms and whatnot don't exist, but in which kinds of structure exist that we haven't even imagined. And I can imagine whatever self-reproducing cognitively-capable beings that might exist in that universe concluding that their universe must have been fine-tuned for life, since nothing else would do for beings like them. It's like the old arguments that the Earth must have been designed as man's home, since the atmosphere is breathable, the temperature is about right, we can eat the organisms here, and so on. Evolution replies that's all so because we evolved in these conditions and naturally are adapted to them. The fine-tuning arguments seem to me to be excessively speculative. Physics doesn't entirely understand this universe, so how can it pontificate on what is and isn't possible in alternative universes that function according to entirely different principles? It strikes me as hubris. Theoretical physics has long been intruding into metaphysics' turf, and it's only gotten worse in recent decades. And ultimately, all the fine tuning arguments leave us with is another of the metaphysical mysteries. They don't become an argument for theism unless one is prepared to make a huge leap. Perhaps the best we can say is that it's consistent with theism, not that it somehow logically necessitates theism as our conclusion.
It certainly IS NOT disorderly, IMO. I agree. They are natural laws which are mathematical in essence (in the abstract) This interpretation is precisely what I want to avoid. I have several times stressed the point that I am not talking about alphanumeric characters, they are human symbolic representations of natural values and functions. Would I be wrong in saying that the alphanumeric characters reveal (translate) the abstract concept of "rights"? If the BOR was written in Chinese, would that not count? Of course, because we are talking about the abstract content of the "inherent rights" argument, not the linguistics. I am not talking about numbers and letters, I am talking about inherent natural mathematical values and functions. As you say "They can be expressed in base 10, base 16, even Roman numerals. Their value does not change". Human Alphanumeric values and functions are symbolic mathematical constructs and only represent natural mathematical imperatives. Nothing disorderly about that. I agree. Please note that I am not equating abstract mathematics with "the will of god". I am offering natural mathematics as refutation and replacement of a willfull god.
Right. I was referring to the "process" part. Nope. Math is merely a tool used to describe them. They are not composed of the math. The map is not the territory. No, that's a reasonable way to say it. There is an abstract concept of rights. That concept can be described in English with alpha characters. Take away the English and the concept does not change at all.
When we say physical laws, we also do not mean that physical laws are human physical constructs. We mean the human understanding of certain physical limits and permissions in accordance with universal ordering potentials in ordered systems. We don't say the human alphanumeric notation of physical laws are the physical laws, written somewhere in the universe. The universe does not have human "universal laws". Just as the universe does not have "human mathematics" but uses universal values and functions which humans understand and have codified as symbolic representations of universal values and functional processes. We know what is meant by the term universal laws . They are the symbolic representation of universal functional constants. Just as the human term mathematical is the symbolic representation of universal potential values and functional processes. IMO, there is an abstract concept of mathematics. That concept can be described by numbers and equations. Take away the numbers and equations and the concept of universal mathematical values and functions does not change at all. Which you actually posited in post #1068, and which I seconded wholeheartedly. IMHO, this is the logically consistent perspective.
Found it Sorry not a theist but got fed up waiting for them Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The banana was probably domesticated 5,000 years ago. Which means God only permitted the people of Indonesia and surrounding areas to have this perfect food for 6,000 of the last 7,000 years or so. So if the video is correct and this is proof of God then I guess it is also proof that God is not the Judea-Christian God.
In post #7 I wrote: 2. The class of more traditional cosmological arguments, derived from Aristotle by way of Aquinas. ... This class of arguments seems to me to revolve around a whole class of unanswered metaphysical questions, (How did reality originate? What is the source of its order?) It doesn't really point to a theistic-style deity unless one introduces the deity as an additional premise which would semingly render the arguments circular. I'm inclined to agree that the cosmological arguments are flawed, but perhaps it's more subtle than that. Certainly some of the more historic cosmological arguments (the 'first-cause' version) do seem to revolve around causality. The 'unmoved mover' might as well, though one has to get into Aristotle's head to understand what he meant by 'movement'. But it's possible to concoct more subtle cosmological arguments that don't need to imagine first causes or the idea that infinite regresses are repellent. Imagine that time extends infinitely into the past and future. And imagine a chain of causes that extends infinitely into the past, with no origin of the chain and no first cause. Even then, when a first-cause or an unmoved mover has been ruled our ex hypothesi, one could still ask why there is an infinite endless chain of causes rather than nothing at all. It's a different kind of question. What's being sought isn't a cause, so much as an explanation. It raises the issue of what Leibniz called the Principle of Sufficient Reason. That's the idea that everything must have a reason, cause or ground. While it might be hard to justify that idea as a metaphysical principle (Spinoza tries to derive it from ex nihilo, nihil fit, 'from nothing, nothing comes') it might arguably be introduced as a requirement for intelligibility. Science certainly seems to presuppose it (most of the time). Otherwise we would just be accepting our experience as given, as 'brute facts', and not even trying to understand it. Applying the Principle of Sufficient Reason to reality as a whole, we seemingly are pointed towards... some unknown explanation... that transcends what we take to be reality as a whole. That's obviously problematic on its face and may be self-contradictory. (Since the scope of 'reality' might extend to anything we might cite to explain reality, rendering all possible answers circular.) If we continue to seek an explanation, then this sort of thinking points us towards the need for an explanation whose nature may be incomprehensible to beings like us. We have no idea what form the explanation might take or what it might look like. It's basically a question that we have no idea how to answer at this point. Personally speaking, I feel it rather strongly. The universe doesn't appear to my eyes as a closed system so much as a cosmic mystery. Something is obviously going on all around, and I don't begin to know what it is. I don't think that anyone knows. (Hence my agnosticism.)
Question; Does a transcendent "causality" have to be sentient, the defining feature of a scriptural god?
I would say NO For those who go for YES their questions then becomes From whence comes the sentience? Or perhaps more importantly from whence comes the superpowers Born on a distant planet about to explode, put into a rocket, sent on a journey to a planetary system with a yellow sun, which, according to legend, will provide said infant powers beyond mere minion humans Arh it's all starting to make sense Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I wish I had the oratory skills of Yazata but I'm a blue collar guy. To play devils advocate, the only historical evidence I can see for thier being a "higher power" is a notion known as "The Wisdom of the Masses" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton By todays standards this guy, Darwins half cousin, was a horrible man. His contributions, regardless of reason, have served well for human knowledge. The Wisdom of the crowds says; If you ask enough people a mundane trivial question such as: How many beans are there in a jar or, as Francis Galton asked; How much does this ox weigh. If you average out the guesses of all those that participated you will arrive at (nearly) the correct answer. Last I checked, more people in the world believe some sort of "higher power" exist than do not believe. If the 'Wisdom of the Masses' (a form of statistical analysis) holds true then that chalks one up for there being something out there as opposed to nothing. I'm not making any conclusions, just stating a point of fact.
