Hawkings and hitchens must hate math

[traillius]

" that which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof "

• Christopher Hitchens.
  In mathematics, there are things known as postulates, that are accepted without proof, as a basis for the entire field of mathematics. Without them, math crumbles( becomes meaningless, though still existing). And without math, no science is possible. So by the above quote, hitchens, and likewise hawkings, cannot be intellectually honest, and also accept math and science. I suppose one can say Hitchens was speaking only of matters metaphysical, but that isn’t what the quote says, and we can only take him at the face value of his words. Now about postulates…
  there is evidence they are true, and work, but only because they are accepted without proof. The existence of God is neither a theory( which is suggested, but not proven, by evidence ), nor a law( proven based on reasoning from postulates and previously proven laws), but a postulate, which is accepted without proof, but is shown to be true and work, as a basis for the entire system( the universe ). Without the postulate of God, the universe, while not ceasing to exist, becomes meaningless. Any attempt to rationalize the universe without this universal postulate renders the reasoning, and the subsequent explanation of the universe, meaningless.

 

[tonyrey]

Without the postulate of God, the universe, while not ceasing to exist, becomes meaningless. Any attempt to rationalize the universe without this universal postulate renders the reasoning, and the subsequent explanation of the universe, meaningless.

I am sure those who reject this postulate will argue that there is a modicum of rationality in an irrational context. This amounts to believing order and harmony just happen to exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever!

 

[Leela]

" that which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof "

• Christopher Hitchens.

This is a misquote. Hitchens used the term “evidence” rather than “proof.” In math it is easy to providen evidence in support of using certain axioms, they just can’t be proven without referring to other axioms.

 

[traillius]

This is a misquote. Hitchens used the term “evidence” rather than “proof.” In math it is easy to providen evidence in support of using certain axioms, they just can’t be proven without referring to other axioms.

Okay evidence.
then there is evidence in support of the axiom of a creator.

See my other post for but one such evidence.

 

[rossum]

In mathematics, there are things known as postulates, that are accepted without proof, as a basis for the entire field of mathematics. Without them, math crumbles( becomes meaningless, though still existing). And without math, no science is possible.

Mathematics is an axiomatic system. All statements are made within a set of axioms, or postulates. For example 1 + 1 = 2 is correct within the axioms of base 10 arithmetic. 1 + 1 = 10 is correct within the axioms of base 2 arithmetic. 1 + 1 = 1 is correct within the axioms of set theory, with ‘+’ as the union operator. Each statement is correct within its own sphere of mathematics and incorrect outside that sphere.

Science is not an axiomatic system; we cannot just pick different axioms at will as we can in mathematics. Science is based on reality, and if part of mathematics does not give useful results that match reality then science will reject that part of mathematics.

The existence of God is neither a theory( which is suggested, but not proven, by evidence ), nor a law( proven based on reasoning from postulates and previously proven laws), but a postulate, which is accepted without proof, but is shown to be true and work, as a basis for the entire system( the universe ). Without the postulate of God, the universe, while not ceasing to exist, becomes meaningless. Any attempt to rationalize the universe without this universal postulate renders the reasoning, and the subsequent explanation of the universe, meaningless.

I use a different set of postulates. I start with “The universe is all that exists”. Under my axiom God is part of the universe because He exists. Only that which does not exist is not part of the universe.

rossum

 

[Scoobyshme]

They may hate math, but they love arithmetic, as in adding up dollars for themselves. How much is a soul (or two, in this case) worth these days?

 

[traillius]

editor’s note:
a correction
in the title, should be hawking, not hawkings. Sorry for any confusion or misunderstanding.

 

[Leela]

Okay evidence.
then there is evidence in support of the axiom of a creator.
QUOTE]

Sure. I don’t doubt that you could supply evidence in support of your hypothesis of a creator god. The problem is that that hypothesis is a nonstarter scientifically. It doesn’t help us do science. In other words, supposing that there is a god who created the universe and designed it to be the way it is may do some things for you, but onbe of those things is not doing science. It doesn’t help us in the scientific project of trying to get consensus on a single description of the world that best enables us to predict and control. Hawking is right to say that God has no place in a scientific description, but he is wrong in seeming to say that a sceintific description is the only sort we ought to ever be interested in. If we are trying to predict and control and get agreement on how to best do that, science is the way to go. That is what science is, but we have a lot of other interests besides predicting and controlling. If there is some sense that it is true to say that the universe has a creator god, it is nevertheless not a scientific truth. It can’t function as science because it could not possibly help us predict and control the world.

Best,
Leela

 

[Scoobyshme]

traillius;7067332:

Okay evidence.
then there is evidence in support of the axiom of a creator.
QUOTE]

Sure. I don’t doubt that you could supply evidence in support of your hypothesis of a creator god. The problem is that that hypothesis is a nonstarter scientifically

. It doesn’t help us do science. In other words, supposing that there is a god who created the universe and designed it to be the way it is may do some things for you, but onbe of those things is not doing science. It doesn’t help us in the scientific project of trying to get consensus on a single description of the world that best enables us to predict and control. Hawking is right to say that God has no place in a scientific description, but he is wrong in seeming to say that a sceintific description is the only sort we ought to ever be interested in. If we are trying to predict and control and get agreement on how to best do that, science is the way to go. That is what science is, but we have a lot of other interests besides predicting and controlling. If there is some sense that it is true to say that the universe has a creator god, it is nevertheless not a scientific truth. It can’t function as science because it could not possibly help us predict and control the world.

Best,
Leela

Well, are you saying that the only acceptable “proof” is scientific proof? That would be very limiting with regard to reality. We don’t always limit ourselves to that even in our daily lives.

Anyway, you might enjoy the following thread, if you haven’t visited it yet:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=494685

 

[traillius]

traillius;7067332:

Okay evidence.
then there is evidence in support of the axiom of a creator.
QUOTE]

Sure. I don’t doubt that you could supply evidence in support of your hypothesis of a creator god. The problem is that that hypothesis is a nonstarter scientifically

. It doesn’t help us do science. In other words, supposing that there is a god who created the universe and designed it to be the way it is may do some things for you, but onbe of those things is not doing science. It doesn’t help us in the scientific project of trying to get consensus on a single description of the world that best enables us to predict and control. Hawking is right to say that God has no place in a scientific description, but he is wrong in seeming to say that a sceintific description is the only sort we ought to ever be interested in. If we are trying to predict and control and get agreement on how to best do that, science is the way to go. That is what science is, but we have a lot of other interests besides predicting and controlling. If there is some sense that it is true to say that the universe has a creator god, it is nevertheless not a scientific truth. It can’t function as science because it could not possibly help us predict and control the world.

Best,
Leela
Interesting. Limit yourself to science if you wish, but its not binding on the population as a whole. God is necessary philosophically and ontologically. Science can’t contradict philosophy, and vice-versa. So science must leave philosophy out. The best that can be said philosophically by a ‘pure’ scientist is " I don’t know. "

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Sure. I don’t doubt that you could supply evidence in support of your hypothesis of a creator god. The problem is that that hypothesis is a nonstarter scientifically.
Leela

I find this to be a very weak move on your part, since you have taken the original question out of the context of asking what the legitimate role of mathematics is without accepting axioms in terms of objective truth, and you do this by placing your rebuttal in the context of asking what makes a hypothesis legitimate, in-order to avoid the consequences of the argument.

No Leela. Just no.

If God is what is necessary in order for mathematics and logic to have any objective truth values and meaning, then God must be presupposed in that context, since the concept of God is necessary in-order for logic and mathematics to have any meaning what so ever in terms of the real world. Given this fact, God is not a “hypothesis”, but rather, God is an axiom of rationality, and thus God cannot be shoved into the framework of science and be expected to provide empirical evidence for its existence, simply because it doesn’t need to. This is for the simple fact that it would be dishonest of a rational mind to use rational axioms and discuss “truth” as opposed to falsehood without also presupposing the objective existence of God as a basis of all rationality. Thus any evidence that science produces for the legitimacy of mathematics is also producing evidence for God indirectly via the necessity of rational axioms.

Personally I don’t think you can handle that Leela.

 

[Leela]

Leela;7067466:

Well, are you saying that the only acceptable “proof” is scientific proof? That would be very limiting with regard to reality. We don’t always limit ourselves to that even in our daily lives.

Anyway, you might enjoy the following thread, if you haven’t visited it yet:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=494685

No, in fact I’m not talking about proof at all. My correction of the Hitchens quote was to steer the conversation away from that red herring.

 

[Leela]

Leela;7067466:

Interesting. Limit yourself to science if you wish, but its not binding on the population as a whole. God is necessary philosophically and ontologically. Science can’t contradict philosophy, and vice-versa. So science must leave philosophy out. The best that can be said philosophically by a ‘pure’ scientist is " I don’t know. "

I’m not limiting myself to science. (I think that Hawking is trying to do that.) I’m saying that the practice of doing science is limited, which is just to say that not verything we do is doing science. We are only doing science when we are participating in the project of getting consensus on a single coherent picture of the universe that best enables us to predict and control. When we are doing that, the hypothesis (or axiom) that there is a God never enters the picture because it couldn’t ever help us predict and control.

Scientists are of course free to have religious beliefs about God, but beliefs about God are never needed and therefore irrelevent as scientific beliefs. Whether or not God exists is a question that matters to science only to the extent that believing or disbeliving in such an entity could have a bearing on our ability to predict and control our world. Most people don’t see their religion in terms of getting agreement on a description that helps us make the best predictions we can, so why be concerned that science doesn’t need to postulate thne existence of God in its theories?

Saying that religion isn’t science is not to trivialize it. There are a lot of things that are important in life besides doing science such as writing poems, building relationships with families and friends, and working for justice.

Best,
Leela

 

[traillius]

This is a misquote. Hitchens used the term “evidence” rather than “proof.” In math it is easy to providen evidence in support of using certain axioms, they just can’t be proven without referring to other axioms.

There is overwhelming evidence, experientially, ontologically, theologically, and philosophically. That you accept none of these is not our problem. Science isn’t designed to answer the question of God’s existence. So out what I presume is a pre-existing bias, those asking for “proof” will only accept scientific proof ( which is impossible, since science lacks the necessary faculties) and will say that any other method of proof or evidence must be faulty, if it supports the hypothesis they have already chosen to reject. Illogical, yes, but they work from emotion, that is all they can do.

 

[Leela]

There is overwhelming evidence, experientially, ontologically, theologically, and philosophically. That you accept none of these is not our problem.

You are responding to something I said about mathematical axioms. I’m sure you have lots of good reasons for your religious beliefs.

Science isn’t designed to answer the question of God’s existence. QUOTE]

I agree, so why would it make sense to say that the existence of God is scientifically true if the existence of God is not a scientific question?

 

[traillius]

You are responding to something I said about mathematical axioms. I’m sure you have lots of good reasons for your religious beliefs.
traillius;7067740:

Science isn’t designed to answer the question of God’s existence. QUOTE]

I agree, so why would it make sense to say that the existence of God is scientifically

true if the existence of God is not a scientific question?
It doesn’t have to scientifically true. Its ABSOLUTELY true. a truth superior to science.

 

[tonyrey]

I use a different set of postulates. I start with “The universe is all that exists”. Under my axiom God is part of the universe because He exists. Only that which does not exist is not part of the universe.

There is no obvious reason to equate God with a part of the universe or to equate the universe with all that exists. A more cogent view is that the universe exists “in” God.

 

[rossum]

There is no obvious reason to equate God with a part of the universe or to equate the universe with all that exists. A more cogent view is that the universe exists “in” God.

That can be your postulate. My postulate is different. Postulates cannot be proved from within the logical system that they define. At most they can be shown to be consistent.

rossum

 

[traillius]

That can be your postulate. My postulate is different. Postulates cannot be proved from within the logical system that they define. At most they can be shown to be consistent.

rossum

Oppositional postulates cannot both be true in reality. Either God exists outside of the universe or he doesn’t. Despite an abundance of local relativism, some universal absolutes still must apply.

 

[Leela]

Oppositional postulates cannot both be true in reality. Either God exists outside of the universe or he doesn’t. Despite an abundance of local relativism, some universal absolutes still must apply.

Okay,but how do we choose between Rossum’s postulate and Tonyrey’s?

We can only ever criticize beliefs with respect to other beliefs.