God, Science and Naturalism

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

Actually, I think that all what sciences has revealed about the nature of the physical reality is that it manifests itself as a mathematical structure.

No because “It’s true that mathematics enables us to quantitatively describe the Universe, it’s an incredibly useful tool when applied properly. But the Universe is a physical, not mathematical entity, and there’s a big difference between the two. Here’s why mathematics alone will always be insufficient to reach a fundamental theory of everything.”

I think you missed the point: I have never said that the universe is a pure mathematical concept, but that all what science has revealed about the physical reality is that the physical reality manifests itself as a mathematically structured entity. This is the most fundamental information science provides about the nature of the physical reality.
I think that atheism does not account for such fundamental scientific information about the physical reality and denies, without any rational arguments, the only rational explanation, i.e. the physical reality is created by a conscious and intelligent God who conceives it through mathematical models.

 

[Mmarco]

It do? So it’s abandoning science to.claim that…

Mmarco:

…therefore, electromagnetic fields (and wavelegths) can exist only if a conscious and intelligent God make them exist by conceiving them as mathematical structures.

Absolutely false; my conclusion follows from a rational analysis of the fundamental information that science provides about the nature of the physical reality.
I think I have given solid and rational arguments, while you have provided no valid counter-arguments; therefore I’ll stop here.
Best regards.

 

[Dan123]

I think I have given solid and rational arguments

All you’ve done is assert the consistent behavior of the universe, laws of physics and so on, require a being to create them. This is just the old “laws need a lawgiver” argument that has always ignored the descriptive nature of what we consider laws.

What would you say the universe would look like if God wasn’t conceiving math into the physical world?

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

I think I have given solid and rational arguments

All you’ve done is assert the consistent behavior of the universe, laws of physics and so on, require a being to create them. This is just the old “laws need a lawgiver” argument that has always ignored the descriptive nature of what we consider laws.

No, this is not what I did; you are simpy using straw man.
I think I have explained clearly my point and I see no reason to repeat it.

 

[lelinator]

Dan123:

Mmarco:

I think I have given solid and rational arguments

All you’ve done is assert the consistent behavior of the universe, laws of physics and so on, require a being to create them.

No, this is not what I did; you are simpy using straw man.
I think I have explained clearly my point and I see no reason to repeat it.

Actually you did make an unsubstantiated assertion:

in fact, the subatomic components of matters (quantum particles and fields) are actually only abtract mathematical concepts.

Truthfully, everything that you perceive is a mental construct, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no objective reality underpinning that construct. The problem with the egocentric predicament is that while it means that you can never know if reality is actually real, it also means that you can never know that it isn’t.

So what you’re left with isn’t God…it’s solipsism.

 

[whatistrue]

I think I have explained clearly my point and I see no reason to repeat it.

If it is so clear, why are people arguing about it? Or perhaps it is perfectly clear but entirely wrong. Has it ever entered your mind that you could possibly be mistaken?

 

[AlNg]

this is not what I did

You have been mouthing Tegmark’s MUH.

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

this is not what I did

You have been mouthing Tegmark’s MUH.

Another straw man.
Tegmark claims that the physical reality is a mathematical structure and that all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well.

I have never said (and never meant) anything like that. You should read and consider better what I have written.

 

[AlNg]

Tegmark claims that the physical reality is a mathematical structure…

I have never said (and never meant) anything like that

Actually, I think that all what sciences has revealed about the nature of the physical reality is that it manifests itself as a mathematical structure. I think that it is a leap (and a totally unreasonable leap) to say that the physical reality is not mathematically structured.

It is true that you did not say that all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well, but it does appear that you say that physical reality manifests itself as a mathematical structure.

 

[Richca]

Sure, Patty, I’ll pick the topic then, from the above link (an expansion of below argument is found there).

“Naturalism is true”: A self-contradictory statement

Naturalism is the view that nothing exists beyond the natural world and that only physical laws operate in our world, i.e. that also humans are purely physical beings. Let us suppose the naturalist wants to defend the position that naturalism is true.
/quote]

Here is something to think about. If nothing exists except what is material/physical, then how is it that we can have immaterial ideas or thoughts, for example, the ideas of God and angels as purely spiritual/immaterial beings. These ideas exist at least in our mind and they are immaterial metaphysical ideas. A material/physical cause produces a material/physical effect. But these ideas are immaterial and metaphysical. If the very substance of our thoughts was material/physical, how could various ideas be at the same time immaterial/metaphysical? The short answer is that the cause of our immaterial ideas is an immaterial intellect.

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

Tegmark claims that the physical reality is a mathematical structure…

I have never said (and never meant) anything like that

Actually, I think that all what sciences has revealed about the nature of the physical reality is that it manifests itself as a mathematical structure. I think that it is a leap (and a totally unreasonable leap) to say that the physical reality is not mathematically structured.

It is true that you did not say that all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well, but it does appear that you say that physical reality manifests itself as a mathematical structure.

Exactly, the difference between my position and Tegmark’s one is that he assumes that mathematics exists by itself, while I understand that mathematics is the product of rational thinking, it is just an abstract concept which can exists only in a thinking mind; therefore, the physical reality doesn’t exit by itself, but it exists only as a concept in the mind of a conscious and intelligent God, who conceives it as a mathematical structure.

 

[Freddy]

AlNg:

Mmarco:

Tegmark claims that the physical reality is a mathematical structure…

I have never said (and never meant) anything like that

Actually, I think that all what sciences has revealed about the nature of the physical reality is that it manifests itself as a mathematical structure. I think that it is a leap (and a totally unreasonable leap) to say that the physical reality is not mathematically structured.

It is true that you did not say that all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well, but it does appear that you say that physical reality manifests itself as a mathematical structure.

Exactly, the difference between my position and Tegmark’s one is that he assumes that mathematics exists by itself, while I understand that mathematics is the product of rational thinking, it is just an abstract concept which can exists only in a thinking mind; therefore, the physical reality doesn’t exit by itself, but it exists only as a concept in the mind of a conscious and intelligent God, who conceives it as a mathematical structure.

Mathematics is just the way we describe reality. The relationship between different aspects of reality already exists. We have simply developed a way to explain it.

That said, all you are saying from that point onwards is ‘We can understand and define reality therefore God created that reality’.

Fine. Some people don’t agree.

 

[stoplooklisten]

A forum is a place for discussions, Al. What would you like to discuss?

“Many people disbelieve in angels because they disbelieve in spirit. They believe only matter exists. The technical name for this philosophy is materialism. Materialism, the denial of spirit or soul, is a faith. It is not scientific. Science has no data for spirit. Spirit cannot be a subject for science because science has not scientific instruments that can detect it.”

Adapted from the book: Angels (and Demons): What do we really know about them? by Peter Kreeft

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

A forum is a place for discussions, Al. What would you like to discuss?

Materialism, the denial of spirit or soul, is a faith. It is not scientific. Science has no data for spirit.

Creeft has it the wrong way around. Because there is no evidence for the soul then a belief in the soul is a matter of faith.

I’m always bemused by this constant mantra ‘You have faith as well!’ Why is so important to people of faith that the rest of us have it? The opposite of faith in God is not faith in materialism. It is simply disbelief.

 

[tootle_toot]

Our Creator arranged for a marvelous Sign to be made available to all of us, the Sign of Jonah.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

It is by the science of this image that we know for sure that miracles can indeed take place in this material world.

 

[AlNg]

Spirit cannot be a subject for science because science has not scientific instruments that can detect it.”

Is it true that science cannot detect spirit or the influence of spirit? For example, science can set up experiments designed to detect the influence of prayer to God or prayer invoking the intercession of a Saint?

 

[Pattylt]

Any claim of a spiritual nature interacting with the material could be verified by science. The problem is the random nature of spiritual activity in the world. It’s not predictable. For those that can be examined after the intervention which is very few of them, they have all been shown to be mistaken, an illusion or a lie.

It’s not that atheists refuse to accept that there may be a spiritual layer within our reality, it’s that no evidence has ever passed muster. Just like claims of ESP and fortune telling…they all fail when investigated.

 

[stoplooklisten]

Is it true that science cannot detect spirit or the influence of spirit? For example, science can set up experiments designed to detect the influence of prayer to God or prayer invoking the intercession of a Saint?

Almighty God cannot be manipulated.

 

[whatistrue]

It is by the science of this image

You mean the claims that are widely disputed and the assertions that are by no means proven? It is fine if you want to believe, but it is not “fact” based on what we know and can prove at this time.

 

[stoplooklisten]

It’s not like you can figure out how to push God’s buttons and obligate Him to respond. He does have character. He responds as He chooses sovereignly in grace and love.