Is God mute?

[stu]

I realize I am not answering your question. It is because I don't have an answer. This is all far beyond our current understanding.

It really isn't that difficult a question to answer, you simply missed my point. As one of those who apparently wants or believes or prefers there to be a 'Designer', and you say all physical laws are ALWAYS mathematical, how come you don't believe math is your 'Designer'? It's a fair question.

That is tautologous. It offers no explanation. Something is mathematical because it is. And if it isn't, it isn't.
To me, what you are describing is intuitively obviously wrong.

It may seem intuitively obviously wrong to you, but that doesn't explain anything at all. Something, anything, is what it is because of its inherent characteristics. If its inherent characteristics were different, it would be something else. To sound at all reasonable, you'll need to explain why that's wrong.
It is tautological in that it is necessarily true. In that regard, I agree, a goal of mathematics in understanding things,is to make them tautologous.
Tautology says nothing when it is merely useless repetition. Discovering the inherent characteristics of things has certainly not proved to be useless!

That sides steps the question. Why does EVERYTHING (we know of) have an inherent characteristic to follow physical law?

You turned what I said on its head. Was it a mistake or is that just saying more about your bias than anything else? What I said was Physical laws ARE the observed inherent characteristics of things. They are the same. There is no reason why they wouldn't follow themselves!

The only explanation is infinity of possibilities. That there are an infinite number of Multiverse, and every possible Universe is "out there".

The only explanation? That's being very certain about things which you say are "all far beyond our current understanding". What about just one universe which has an infinite number of attempts to exist. Still a Multiverse but not "all out there".
What about the option of this universe existing due to inevitable consequences, simply because with its inherent characteristics it can do nothing else but exist the way it does.
Or low density regions of this universe collapsing before those containing galaxies, producing physical infinite big crunches which in turn cause big bangs. All scientifically, mathematically feasible, none of them suggest any need for a 'Designer'.

You are making a mistake that is easy to make. It is not mathematics that says there is a GOD. It is meta-mathematics that suggests it.

Nothing in mathematics, meta or otherwise, shows or suggests by math itself, any need for a God. Saying it does will not make it true.

 

[nitro]

It really isn't that difficult a question to answer, you simply missed my point. As one of those who apparently wants or believes or prefers there to be a 'Designer', and you say all physical laws are ALWAYS mathematical, how come you don't believe math is your 'Designer'? It's a fair question.

I don't even know what it means for math to be a "Designer". If Math is the creation of the human mind, then would you not be astonished that something conjured by a bunch of cells explains the universe? If it is not created and is instead discovered because it exists on some meta level, why does it exist and why does our Universe match it and make use of it exclusively? I realize it is impossible for you to answer this question. The reason I pose it is more to make you understand my conundrum and most others that see extreme mathematical design in nature. Could it happen by chance? Sure, if you believe that you can win the powerball every day from now to eternity because that is how likely a chance occurrenc of it is, in my mind.

It may seem intuitively obviously wrong to you, but that doesn't explain anything at all. Something, anything, is what it is because of its inherent characteristics. If its inherent characteristics were different, it would be something else. To sound at all reasonable, you'll need to explain why that's wrong.

Right, but the "something elses" are unimaginably more likely than this particular case, the only one we can point to. The problem is that making a reasonable attempt at an explanation with a sample of one is impossible. There are no statistics. So any statement you make has to be exactly correct. How can anyone make a statement about what is or isn't if the only evidence is singular? Your question is impossible to answer.

It is tautological in that it is necessarily true. In that regard, I agree, a goal of mathematics in understanding things,is to make them tautologous.
Tautology says nothing when it is merely useless repetition. Discovering the inherent characteristics of things has certainly not proved to be useless!

I have no idea what you just said. And I read it twice.

You turned what I said on its head. Was it a mistake or is that just saying more about your bias than anything else? What I said was Physical laws ARE the observed inherent characteristics of things. They are the same. There is no reason why they wouldn't follow themselves!

Follow themselves? I don't know what that means. If you mean they are axiomatic, then of course there is nothing more fundamental than axioms. But physical laws are not axiomatic. In fact, they appear to be emergent. Further, it is an amazing design. Think about it, the laws of nature appear to be amenable to human reasoning and mathematical analysis. Further, both Newton and Einstein can be right to different approximations. It is almost as if the way they are, it is meant for incremental approximation to them, and therefore incremental understanding! Very strange, at least to me.

The only explanation? That's being very certain about things which you say are "all far beyond our current understanding". What about just one universe which has an infinite number of attempts to exist. Still a Multiverse but not "all out there".
What about the option of this universe existing due to inevitable consequences, simply because with its inherent characteristics it can do nothing else but exist the way it does.
Or low density regions of this universe collapsing before those containing galaxies, producing physical infinite big crunches which in turn cause big bangs. All scientifically, mathematically feasible, none of them suggest any need for a 'Designer'.

Sure that would work if you assume no cause. That at some unimaginably long time ago, the universe sprung into being, being perfectly mathematically consistant. Uhuh. The Krauss "from nothing" Universe. Aside from that, you have no problem with actual physical infinity? To me, a Designer and actual physical infinity are both gargantuan leaps of faith. Show me a SINGLE instance of actual infinity in nature?

Nothing in mathematics, meta or otherwise, shows or suggests by math itself, any need for a God. Saying it does will not make it true.

No, but you are missing a very small detail. ALL of science is based on one HUGE assumption - that cause proceeds effect. Otherwise, science could not exist because that lies on the foundations of mathematics that proceeds from axioms in this very cause=>effect.

Then what was the initial cause of the cyclic Universe? To say it has always existed is not science because science is about understanding how cause produces effect, BY DEFINITION! Any other definition is not science, and masquerades as pseudo-science by sweeping the conceptual problem under the infinity rug. Infinity is something I have always said repeatedly is possible, but actual physical infinity is close to as huge a leap in faith as a Designer. And Designers have problems too. What was the cause of the Designer? See, it is turtles the whole way down.

 

[nitro]

It really isn't that difficult a question to answer, you simply missed my point. As one of those who apparently wants or believes or prefers there to be a 'Designer', and you say all physical laws are ALWAYS mathematical, how come you don't believe math is your 'Designer'? It's a fair question.

I don't even know what it means for math to be a Designer. If Math is the creation of the human, mind, then would you not be astonished that something conjured by a bunch of cells explains the universe? If it is not created and is discovered, why does it exist and why does our Universe match it? I realize it is impossible for you to answer this question. The reason I pose it is more to make you understand my conundrum and most others that see extreme mathematical design in nature. Could it happen by chance? Sure, if you believe that you can win the powerball every day from now to eternity because that is how likely a chance occurrenc of it is, in my mind.

It may seem intuitively obviously wrong to you, but that doesn't explain anything at all. Something, anything, is what it is because of its inherent characteristics. If its inherent characteristics were different, it would be something else. To sound at all reasonable, you'll need to explain why that's wrong.

Right, but the "something elses" are unimaginably more likely than this particular case, the only one we can point to. The problem is that making a reasonable attempt at an explanation with a sample of one is impossible. There are no statistics. So any statement you make has to be exactly correct. How can anyone make a statement about what is or isn't if the only evidence is singular? Your question is impossible to answer.

It is tautological in that it is necessarily true. In that regard, I agree, a goal of mathematics in understanding things,is to make them tautologous.
Tautology says nothing when it is merely useless repetition. Discovering the inherent characteristics of things has certainly not proved to be useless!

I have no idea what you just said. And I read it twice.

You turned what I said on its head. Was it a mistake or is that just saying more about your bias than anything else? What I said was Physical laws ARE the observed inherent characteristics of things. They are the same. There is no reason why they wouldn't follow themselves!

Follow themselves? I don't know what that means. If you mean they are axiomatic, then of course there is nothing more fundamental than axioms. But physical laws are not axiomatic. In fact, they appear to be emergent. Further, it is an amazing design. Think about it, the laws of nature appear to be amenable to human reasoning and mathematical analysis. Further, both Newton and Einstein can be right to different approximations. It is almost as if the way they are, it is meant for incremental approximation to them! Very strange, at least to me.

The only explanation? That's being very certain about things which you say are "all far beyond our current understanding". What about just one universe which has an infinite number of attempts to exist. Still a Multiverse but not "all out there".
What about the option of this universe existing due to inevitable consequences, simply because with its inherent characteristics it can do nothing else but exist the way it does.
Or low density regions of this universe collapsing before those containing galaxies, producing physical infinite big crunches which in turn cause big bangs. All scientifically, mathematically feasible, none of them suggest any need for a 'Designer'.

Sure that would work if you assume no cause. That at some unimaginably long time ago, the universe sprung into being. The Krauss "from nothing" Universe. Aside from that, you have no problem with actual physical infinity? To me, a Designer and actual physical infinity are both gargantuan leaps of faith. Show me a SINGLE instance of actual infinity in nature?

Nothing in mathematics, meta or otherwise, shows or suggests by math itself, any need for a God. Saying it does will not make it true.

No, but you are missing a very small detail. ALL of science is based on one HUGE assumption - that cause proceeds effect. Otherwise, science could not exist because that lies on the foundations of mathematics that proceeds from axioms in this very cause=>effect.

Then what was the initial cause of the cyclic Universe? To say it has always existed is not science, it just wraps it under the infinity rug.

 

[jem]

you have a butt load more useful intelligence than I thought. well done.

This in itself is an extremely difficult question we don't have the answer to. Is math a product of the human mind and is therefore created? Or is it "out there" waiting to be discovered. If it is "out there", why does EVERY PHYSICAL action in the Universe follow some physical law? What is the thing that ties the shoe laces together? Saying that there doesn't need to be one is saying that you are willing to play the powerball lottery every day and expect to win it and don't think anything unusual happens if you do. And yet, someone does win the powerball, but only as the expectancy of huge numbers prevail.

I realize I am not answering your question. It is because I don't have an answer. This is all far beyond our current understanding. It is like asking man 100,000 years ago to explain how airplanes fly.


That is tautologous. It offers no explanation. Something is mathematical because it is. And if it isn't, it isn't. Not that I don't understand your point. I think that these sorts of arguments say more about the person's own bias than the thing itself. To me, what you are describing is intuitively obviously wrong. And yet, I could easily put myself in your shoes and see the reasoning mistakes that I could be making the exact opposite.

But tautology says nothing. Or it says everything. Take your pick. Strange as it may seem, the goal of all of mathematics is to make things tautologous in appearance. But it hides a torturous path that it took to get there. Either infinity again, or an ancient GOD with fantastic powers of reasoning.



That sides steps the question. Why does EVERYTHING (we know of) have an inherent characteristic to follow physical law? The only explanation is infinity of possibilities. That there are an infinite number of Multiverse, and every possible Universe is "out there". Then, the only Universes where they will appear designed are ones where physical laws are mathematical, and therefore creation can be traced back to random cause simply by the argument of large numbers. Some Universe won the Multiverse Powerball. These universes will create intelligent life that can ask these questions. Without evidence of the infinite number of them, we will appear special. Hence the possible illusion of a Designer.

Sure, if this is the case, there is no need for a Designer. But infinity in space or time is JUST as hard to swallow for me as a Designer is, except that even in the Designer case these things lead to infinite regress. It is an impossible question given our current understanding.


You are making a mistake that is easy to make. It is not mathematics that says there is a GOD. It is meta-mathematics that suggests it. And then, as Godel and Turing and Wittgenstein before them proved, there is meta-meta-mathematics, and infinite regress again. The difference is we know how to handle mathematical infinity.

I have no idea what to make of physical infinity. Maybe one day. If that day comes, I will be more weighted to the random cause side than I am now. But Quantum Mechanics is most definitely pointing to discreet finite space-time. It is the mathematics itself that needs to be infinite, even in describing finite things. That's the Many Worlds Interpretation and infinity crawls back in the back door. But that could just be ignorance of where we are in our understanding.

 

[OddTrader]

Q http://www.progressivetheology.org/principles/Science-Bible.html

Intelligent Design and the Question of God

Much attention is currently being paid to a concept that is called by its proponents the Intelligent Design (ID) Theory. The most basic summary of ID is that biological organisms are so complex that they cannot have developed by chance, so they must have had a designer. Although advocates of teaching ID in the public school avoid saying so, it is clear that for the vast majority of them, that designer is the God of Christianity.

How should a Christian who is committed to both good theology and good science assess ID? First, it must be said that all Christians, both advocates and opponents of ID, believe in an intelligent designer. The question is not whether God is ultimately responsible for the design of the universe but whether ID, as presented by its proponents, offers a necessary or even reasonable alternative to evolution. In my estimation it does not, for the following reasons:

1. ID is not a scientific theory
2. ID is not a scientific hypothesis
3. ID is a philosophically-based critique of evolution
4. ID imposes limits on God's intelligence and power

First, despite the fact that it is sometimes called Intelligent Design Theory, ID is not a scientific theory, for it has not been through the rigorous process of scientific testing that is required for a hypothesis to become a theory. In fact, since it does not offer testable hypotheses concerning its claims, it is not even a scientific hypothesis. Instead, it is a philosophically-based critique of evolution. Now, there is nothing wrong with critiquing existing scientific theories; advancements in science cannot be made without insightful critiques. However, many of ID's critiques of evolution are simply recycled creationist critiques from the 19th and 20th centuries that have failed to carry any weight with the scientific community in the past. Other critiques, such as pointing out the gaps in current knowledge that certainly exist, are inconsequential without a scientifically testable alternative, which ID does not provide.

Finally, although ID criticizes the classical theory of evolution for eliminating God from the equation, it is not true that the theory of evolution eliminates the possibility of God. Although many scientists do reject the idea of God outright, many others see no contradiction between evolution and the idea of God. The book Bios, Cosmos, Theos, edited by Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese, consists of a series of interviews with sixty leading scientists, many of them Nobel laureates, about religion and science, and none the scientists represented in the book finds God incompatible with science. Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, discusses the relationship between religion and science in Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution, and he too believes that God and science are compatible. In fact, it can be argued that ID itself imposes limits on God's intelligence and power that the classical theory of evolution (which has no reference to God, positive or negative) does not. ID insists that biological life is so complex that it could not have arisen by ordinary physical processes such as genetic mutation and natural selection. But in saying this, it implicitly limits both God's intelligence and power.

Is God not capable of producing a set of natural laws and an initial set of data that would lead to the formation of the universe and the earth as we know it?

Is God not capable of designing the atom in such a way that chemical reactions combine with radiation to form larger molecules such as proteins, the building blocks of life?

Is God not capable of creating a system of organic and inorganic compounds, physical conditions, and extraterrestrial encounters (e.g., meteor collisions with the earth) that could take advantage of natural selection to produce the family tree of all life on the planet?

A God who is incapable of these things might be intelligent, but such a God would be limited. This is not the God that most Christian theology proclaims.
UQ

 

[stu]

I don't even know what it means for math to be a "Designer".

Then what would it mean to you for something to be a Designer? I am taking it that we both know what's being meant by the word Designer here.

If Math is the creation of the human, mind, then would you not be astonished that something conjured by a bunch of cells explains the universe?

Why would I be astonished? What does astonish me more, is how you talk of cells as if they are nothing of consequence. Something that is remarkable astonishing extraordinary and amazing like a bunch of cells, is handwaved away in place of an invisible assumed imaginary unnecessary non-entity with no trace of existence, but given equal credibility in explaining the universe.
In that way I do sometimes get amazed how those same bunch of cells can also be capable of such astonishing irrationality.

I realize it is impossible for you to answer this question. The reason I pose it is more to make you understand my conundrum and most others that see extreme mathematical design in nature. Could it happen by chance? Sure, if you believe that you can win the powerball every day from now to eternity because that is how likely a chance occurrenc of it is, in my mind.

In that analogy you'd only need win powerball once. That in itself would provide vast if not endless opportunity to negate questions of chance, within countless varying galaxies.

However, this is what's not making sense to me. You say extreme mathematical design is seen in nature. You accommodate the idea of a Designer, but then contrary to the mathematical design you mention, refuse math as a Designer!
I'd go as far as to say any plausible Designer like math or gravity would be rejected as mere chance - though a Designer that is not necessary, shows no signs of existence in reality is not rejected. In other words, a Designer has to always be a mythical concept.

Right, but the "something elses" are unimaginably more likely than this particular case, the only one we can point to. The problem is that making a reasonable attempt at an explanation with a sample of one is impossible. There are no statistics. So any statement you make has to be exactly correct. How can anyone make a statement about what is or isn't if the only evidence is singular? Your question is impossible to answer.

You make the argument "How can anyone make a statement about what is or isn't if the only evidence [the universe] is singular?". Then you go right ahead and make a statement about what is or isn't, when the evidence is only singular!! You say "Right, but the "something elses" are unimaginably more likely than this particular case". How can you say they are if the only evidence is singular!!?

But I'm sorry, you still miss the point. The essential constituents of things including the universe, make them what they are. Were they not of those essential constituents, they would be different things with their own different essential constituents, which again would make them what they are. The statistics are provided in the language of math. That is a reasonable statement. Tautological maybe, but rendering it nevertheless true.

I have no idea what you just said. And I read it twice.

I notice you've said the same to me before when faced with a proposition that is necessarily true.

Follow themselves? I don't know what that means.

It means to take an inevitable course because that's all they can do within their inherent characteristics .

If you mean they are axiomatic, then of course there is nothing more fundamental than axioms. But physical laws are not axiomatic.

Physical laws are assumed to always occur within the known universe if certain conditions prevail. In that respect they certainly are axiomatic. In 1930, Weyl and Dirac showed Quantum Mechanics as axiomatic.
Whether axioms are meaningful to the discussion or not , they do apply to physical laws, the way physical laws occur throughout the known universe.

Further, it is an amazing design. Think about it, the laws of nature appear to be amenable to human reasoning and mathematical analysis. Further, both Newton and Einstein can be right to different approximations. It is almost as if the way they are, it is meant for incremental approximation to them! Very strange, at least to me.

I think you must surely mean human reasoning and mathematical analysis, appears to be amenable to the laws of nature, not the other way about. For example, the laws of nature are not amenable to any human reasoning in connection with perpetual motion machines, and neither Newton or Einstien approximations of nature could stand on myth over math. For me,strange is accommodating without any rational explanation, a mythical Designer as explanation for reality, when its very nature necessitates no match.

Sure that would work if you assume no cause. That at some unimaginably long time ago, the universe sprung into being. The Krauss "from nothing" Universe.

Were a state of nothing to have caused a universe, why is that not cause and effect?

Aside from that, you have no problem with actual physical infinity? To me, a Designer and actual physical infinity are both gargantuan leaps of faith. Show me a SINGLE instance of actual infinity in nature?

Einstein - general relativity - infinite density.
Presumably you can envisage a Designer sitting in an infinite state of nothing prior to any universe, but can't envisage just the infinite state of nothing.
Or in all honesty, can't envisage either!?
Thing is there is 'extreme mathematical design in nature' suggesting that state of nothing, but no math suggesting that Designer.

 

[jimmiebarton]

thinking about a characteristic the (or "a") designer MUST possess; to get some leverage on understanding "Him"...

designer = intention.

designer MUST have intention.

that begs the question, what is intention?

Your goal, purpose, or aim is your intention. It's something you mean to do, whether you pull it off or not. You may have the best intention of cooking an incredible meal, but if you leave the burner on and burn the house down, you will not be remembered as an excellent chef.:eek:

 

[OddTrader]

Finally, as expected, all about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion !

 

[fhl]

I think there's a scripture for this whole thread.

'My sheep hear my voice, and those who don't hear my voice waste away their lives drunk, stupid, and complaining that I am mute'

Maybe that's a paraphrase, but it's something like that.

 

[jimmiebarton]

what thinking man begins with "My sheep"?