MATHEMATICS IN NATURE PROVES INTELLIGENT DESIGN

[Speedwell]

When it comes to Euclidian Geometry and Arithmetic I would agree. However many mathematical systems were invented totally without reference to natural laws at all. In some cases these systems have eventually been found to have applications in the natural world. I am not stating anything speculative or philosophical here --- just giving you a small perspective on mathematics, nature and history.

The question is probably not susceptible of resolution--it's a discussion which has been going on in philosophical circles for the best part of three millennia.
What I object to is the implication of the OP, that rejecting Mathematical Realism is tantamount to atheism.

 

[JackRT]

The question is probably not susceptible of resolution--it's a discussion which has been going on in philosophical circles for the best part of three millennia.
What I object to is the implication of the OP, that rejecting Mathematical Realism is tantamount to atheism.

I agree.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Given that I easily find mathematical patterns in random, unrelated things all the time, I think it would be weirder if there weren't some mathematical patterns in nature. It would take a lot of effort and planning to prevent them, if that is even possible.

 

[Radrook]

I always use semantics when I write--grammar and spelling, too.

I have misrepresented nothing. Mathematical Realism is unfalsifiable and not essential to any Christian doctrine.

You mean as opposed to your scientific realism with all its theoretical uncertainties?

Scientific Realism

Scientific realism is the doctrine that not only do stones, trees, and cats exist, but so do the objects that science posits. If you’re a scientific realist, you include amongst the furniture of your universe such so-called “unobservable” subatomic particles as electron, bosons, and quarks, as well as objects and phenomena on the other end of the magnitude spectrum such as black holes, gravity, and an expanding universe.

One problem with scientific realism is that scientific theories are sometimes wrong, and so the objects that these theories posit can be fictional in the end. One favorite example in the literature is a 17th century theory of combustion that posited the existence of a substance called phlogiston. The theory, while scientifically accepted at the time, turned out to be wrong, and phlogiston was shown not to exist. So a 17th century scientific realist would have been put in the awkward position of believing in the reality of something that didn’t in fact exist.

How does a scientific realist come to grips with such uncertainty? Well, the general response from scientific realists is that this is the best we can do. Sure, science is sometimes wrong, but it’s still our best bet for uncovering the true nature of the universe. There is no non-scientific, privileged position from which we will ever be able to see the entire truth about the world — there is no window into the room that holds all of the furniture of the universe. Our current scientific theories provide the best view we can get.
mathematical realism – We Love Philosophy

BTW
I am not a mathematical realist since I don't believe that numbers exist independent of mind. As a matter of fact, I consider that a silly idea since numbers are abstract concepts.
That they are detected in nature by minds and are attributed to a mind is not mathematical realism.

Look it up on this link and see for yourself.
mathematical realism – We Love Philosophy

 

[PsychoSarah]

You mean as opposed to your scientific realism with all its theoretical uncertainties?

-_- electrons are observable, as are black holes, and gravity, and the universe is still expanding we can watch it move, what the heck.

 

[Speedwell]

You mean as opposed to your scientific realism with all its theoretical uncertainties?

Scientific Realism is not essential to any Christian doctrine. It's not "mine" either.

BTW
I am not a mathematical realist since I don't believe that numbers exist independent of mind. As a matter of fact, I consider that a silly idea since numbers are abstract concepts.
That they are detected in nature by minds and are attributed to a mind is not mathematical realism.

Were you not arguing earlier that the Fibonacci Sequence was causal of the curves in a nautilus shell? Did you not post a Realist video in the OP and proclaim God the inventor of mathematics?

But I don't care if you're a Mathematical Realist or not. The only thing I would object to is if it was used as a "test" for theism.

 

[Radrook]

-_- electrons are observable, as are black holes, and gravity, and the universe is still expanding we can watch it move, what the heck.

And when theories change there goes your realism down the drain. Realism demands the conclusion that what one is postulating is real. A change of theory forces scientists to declare what they had considered previously real as unreal. Scientific realism also assumes that things not directly observed, such as strings, to be real.
String theory - Wikipedia

 

[PsychoSarah]

And when theories change there goes your realism down the drain.

-_- not really. That electrons exist is the observation, they are used in microscopes, yeesh. What might change in atomic theory isn't their existence, but perhaps how they work.

also, I am not a scientific relativist, whatever that is, I just took issue with the implication that electrons and other items in that list weren't observable.

 

[Radrook]

-_- not really. That electrons exist is the observation, they are used in microscopes, yeesh. What might change in atomic theory isn't their existence, but perhaps how they work.

also, I am not a scientific relativist, whatever that is, I just took issue with the implication that electrons and other items in that list weren't observable.

An individual electrion cannot be directly observed for the reasons explained in this commentary.
https://www.quora.com/Are-electrons-observable

Also, it isn't scientific relativist-it is a scientific realist which means that you assume that unseen particles exist because they fit in with a theory which explains phenomena. That's why dark matter and dark energy are assumed to exist though they are not seen. They are INFERRED to exist based on observation of what is presumed to be a gravitational effect on matter and on the universal expansion rate. It is no different than the inference of mind existing based on the observation of mathematical principles that govern the universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually, the aversion isn't really against any intelligent designer. Some physicists have suggested extraterrestrial and even extra-dimensional possibilities' in that area. The aversion is if a heaven is mentioned or a God is inferred or if that inference is strongly suspected. Then the claims of inability to see kick in.

If you take a closer look, I think you'll find that the aversion is towards any and all ideas that are being asserted as certainties / facts / dogma's, without a single shred of independendly verifiable evidence.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

When it comes to Euclidian Geometry and Arithmetic I would agree. However many mathematical systems were invented totally without reference to natural laws at all. In some cases these systems have eventually been found to have applications in the natural world. I am not stating anything speculative or philosophical here --- just giving you a small perspective on mathematics, nature and history.

So to what are you referring? I'm not a 'pure' mathematician and I'm curious.

 

[Radrook]

If you take a closer look, I think you'll find that the aversion is towards any and all ideas that are being asserted as certainties / facts / dogma's, without a single shred of independendly verifiable evidence.

You don't have a single shred of verifiable evidence for the existence of multiple universes and you smilingly and calmly accept the idea as plausible. It's the idea of a creator that bristles the hackles.

 

[AvgJoe]

I was affirming that God is the Creator of all.

And I'm simply affirming that your claim has yet to be established.

You have proof that it's not?

Correct, I have no proof that you've demonstrated god/s exist.

Nice word twisting.

 

[durangodawood]

You don't have a single shred of verifiable evidence for the existence of multiple universes and you smilingly and calmly accept the idea as plausible. It's the idea of a creator that bristles the hackles.

Well. we undeniably have one universe. So thats something! And its very very rare to find just one example of a thing existing.

As for creators, thats still entirely a matter of faith.

So its a little tiny leap to suppose many universes. But to suppose a whole other supernatural order.... thats a chasm!

 

[Radrook]

Well. we undeniably have one universe. So thats something! And its very very rare to find just one example of a thing existing.

As for creators, thats still entirely a matter of faith.

So its a little tiny leap to suppose many universes. But to suppose a whole other supernatural order.... thats a chasm!

True, we detect one universe so there is absolutely no logical reason to imagine others since the very word universe means EVERYTHING. So postulating other everythings goes contrary to the definition of the word universe itself and makes the suggestion of other universes nonsensical because nothing can exist outside everything that exists which is the meaning of universe.

The Universe is all of time and space and its contents
Universe - Wikipedia

In stark contrast, we have phenomena which indicate activity of planning mind. Such patterns are present in nature making the inductive leap of a planning mind totally justifiable if not obligatory. That is not blind faith. That is a belief based on observation and justifiable inference.

In short, belief in multiple universes is totally unjustifiable. Furthermore, it based on BLIND faith motivated by a strong need to invalidate the fine tuning which our universe displays which is itself indicative of a planning mind..

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don't have a single shred of verifiable evidence for the existence of multiple universes

Nobody is suggesting multiple universes as fact / certainties / dogma's.
At the very best, they are proposed in a "what if" fashion.

and you smilingly and calmly accept the idea as plausible.

"Plausible" is not the same as fact / certainty / dogma.
"Plausible" doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.

It's the idea of a creator that bristles the hackles.

No. It's the idea of positing things without any independently verifiable evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

True, we detect one universe so there is absolutely no logical reason to imagine others since the very word universe means EVERYTHING.

In laymen terms, perhaps.
To a physicists, the "universe" means "the expanding space-time bubble".
Which might or might not constitute "everything".

So postulating other everythings goes contrary to the definition of the word universe itself and makes the suggestion of other universes nonsensical because nothing can exist outside everything that exists which is the meaning of universe.

Ow? Nothing can exist outside of everything / the universe, ey?
Is your god something? Is this god part of this universe / everything you refer to?

In stark contrast, we have phenomena which indicate activity of planning mind.

Or so you keep claiming.

Such patterns are present in nature making the inductive leap of a planning mind totally justifiable if not obligatory. That is not blind faith. That is a belief based on observation and justifiable inference.

Actually... it's a belief based on an assumed conclusion for wich you are unable to give any kind of independently verifiable evidence.

We have been asking you to share with us the falsifiable test to determine this "planning" in any random object, and you have consistently failed to do so.

Furthermore, it based on BLIND faith motivated by a strong need to invalidate the fine tuning which our universe displays which is itself indicative of a planning mind..

Nobody is positing multi-verses as anything but a "what if".
No matter what you say.

 

[Radrook]

Well. we undeniably have one universe. So thats something! And its very very rare to find just one example of a thing existing.

As for creators, thats still entirely a matter of faith.

So its a little tiny leap to suppose many universes. But to suppose a whole other supernatural order.... thats a chasm!

Uniqueness isn't rare at all if the thing in existence is by definition all that is in supposed to be in existence and nothing more. Then by default it is the unique exception to your supposedly unbendable rule. The definition is desperately avoided in order to cunningly evade fine tuning scenario which does indicate a mind at work. In short, blind faith in such a scenario is deemed atheistically preferable. Nothing new since that's the same reason for the unwavering trust in the angiogenesis idea with its blind faith in matter turning into fish and fish eventually turning into people. Sorry but I just don't buy the ridiculous mindless genius, t'was the chemicals that did it, explanation.

BTW
Strange how the ones who keep saying that they can't see keep attributing blindness to those who can.

 

[Loudmouth]

You don't have a single shred of verifiable evidence for the existence of multiple universes and you smilingly and calmly accept the idea as plausible. It's the idea of a creator that bristles the hackles.

We do have evidence for a natural process that creates biodiversity. That process is called evolution. The existence of a well evidence natural process falsifies your claims of intelligent design.

 

[Radrook]

We do have evidence for a natural process that creates biodiversity. That process is called evolution. The existence of a well evidence natural process falsifies your claims of intelligent design.

A process falsifies nothing of the sort. The process verifies intelligent design for reasons you illogically claim unable to SEE.