Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Projection. It can be treated, but I think you may have gone to far.You seem to have problems when it comes to understanding where the meanings in our words comes from. Are you aware of semantics?
See what you just said is your model.We see consistent and reliable regularity in nature and we attempt to discover the rules of what we are seeing in nature, its "laws", trying to always get closer to the actual rules, which already exist before our observations, independently of us.
Ok (acknowledged).. However, I don't see how one can demonstrate the falsity of some 'Scientific Argument for God's Existence', when one's own beliefs stand in the way of seeing how science actually works(?)We are not talking about whether or not something has or needs a scientific explanation.
Sometimes 'the intuition' is simply a false expectation attributable to a perception which was originally always based on a belief. We have seen this time and time again in science .. and sometimes it goes on for centuries! Surely a pause for considering the possibility of some undistinguished belief is worthwhile(?)lesliedellow said:I cannot remember which physicist it was who declared himself to have been "amazed" by the principle of least action, when he first of it. But it is the kind of intuition, which results in that kind of amazement, that we are talking about.
(I take your apparent declination of my challenge of your coming up with a test which demonstrates your unsupportable assertion that: 'the laws of the universe' somehow exist independently from human thinking, as an indicator of your apparent retreat(?)).Projection. It can be treated, but I think you may have gone to far.
I think I pointed the semantically null value of one of your posts in another thread. Your approach is becoming tiresome in its banality. Please find a new record.
As a physiscist, I think that the strongest rational argument for God's existence is the mathematical representability of the natural laws. Science has proved that natural phenomena can be predicted through some specific mathematical equations, the laws of physics.
The fact that through a system of mathematical equations it is possible to predict sistematically the results of all mechanical, chemical, electromagnetic, optical and thermal processes makes it unreasonable to suppose that nature hasn't an intrinsic mathematical, and therefore rational, structure. There is in fact no reason to expect that a non-mathematically structured universe could be sistematically described by a system of mathematical equations. Actually the first scientists (Galileo and Newton) who began to use mathematical equations to express the natural laws, were christians and they justified their choice because they believed that the universe was a creation of an intelligent God. Their intuition has certainly revealed one of the most fruitful intuitions in history and all scientists now accept the idea that the natural laws can be expressed through matemathical equations, even if some of them (atheists and agnostics) seem not to understand the theological implications of this fact.
I would like to point out that a mathematical equation cannot exist by itself because it is an abstract concept and it may exist only as a thought in a conscious and intelligent mind.
The insurmountable problem for atheists is to explain the existence of the laws of physics and their intrinsic conceptual and mathematical nature.
Usually atheists refer to the natural laws as "patterns or regularities" (or equivalent expressions) but these are only vague and empty rethoric figures, without any real meaning. The point is that all modern physics, and in particular quantum mechanics, consists of abstract mathematical models without any concrete representations.
In conclusion, the existence of this mathematically structured universe does imply the existence of an intelliogent and conscious God; this universe cannot exist by itself, but it can exist only if there is a conscious and inteligent God conceiving it according to some specific mathematical equations.
.. especially given that 'the universe' is also a description, (or model), itself.Mathematics is a symbolic language humans have invented to describe the universe.
Why should it be surprising in any way that it can be used to describe the universe?
As a physiscist, I think that the strongest rational argument for God's existence is the mathematical representability of the natural laws. Science has proved that natural phenomena can be predicted through some specific mathematical equations, the laws of physics.
The fact that through a system of mathematical equations it is possible to predict sistematically the results of all mechanical, chemical, electromagnetic, optical and thermal processes makes it unreasonable to suppose that nature hasn't an intrinsic mathematical, and therefore rational, structure. There is in fact no reason to expect that a non-mathematically structured universe could be sistematically described by a system of mathematical equations. Actually the first scientists (Galileo and Newton) who began to use mathematical equations to express the natural laws, were christians and they justified their choice because they believed that the universe was a creation of an intelligent God. Their intuition has certainly revealed one of the most fruitful intuitions in history and all scientists now accept the idea that the natural laws can be expressed through matemathical equations, even if some of them (atheists and agnostics) seem not to understand the theological implications of this fact.
I would like to point out that a mathematical equation cannot exist by itself because it is an abstract concept and it may exist only as a thought in a conscious and intelligent mind.
The insurmountable problem for atheists is to explain the existence of the laws of physics and their intrinsic conceptual and mathematical nature.
Usually atheists refer to the natural laws as "patterns or regularities" (or equivalent expressions) but these are only vague and empty rethoric figures, without any real meaning. The point is that all modern physics, and in particular quantum mechanics, consists of abstract mathematical models without any concrete representations.
In conclusion, the existence of this mathematically structured universe does imply the existence of an intelliogent and conscious God; this universe cannot exist by itself, but it can exist only if there is a conscious and inteligent God conceiving it according to some specific mathematical equations.
Well there we have it ... Evidence by your own hand that the math equations are a human (mind) invention.mmarco said:I would like to point out that a mathematical equation cannot exist by itself because it is an abstract concept and it may exist only as a thought in a conscious and intelligent mind.
What does Atheism have to do with explaining the existence of the laws of physics? Are you saying Christians can't do that?mmarco said:The insurmountable problem for atheists is to explain the existence of the laws of physics and their intrinsic conceptual and mathematical nature.
Nonsense .. How do you explain the measurements of the Hyperfine structure (ie: the 'concrete') without using the Quantum Mechanics (QM's) nuclear magnetic moment? In this case, the structure measurements, (ie: the 'concrete'), even preceded the theory.mmarco said:Usually atheists refer to the natural laws as "patterns or regularities" (or equivalent expressions) but these are only vague and empty rethoric figures, without any real meaning. The point is that all modern physics, and in particular quantum mechanics, consists of abstract mathematical models without any concrete representations.
So God is a mathematician then? (That'll make some folk happy).mmarco said:In conclusion, the existence of this mathematically structured universe does imply the existence of an intelliogent and conscious God; this universe cannot exist by itself, but it can exist only if there is a conscious and inteligent God conceiving it according to some specific mathematical equations.
Mathematics is a symbolic language humans have invented to describe the universe.
Why should it be surprising in any way that it can be used to describe the universe?
I agree with you in regard to God’s existence. But, mathematics only provides a means for our after-the-fact interpretation of how things work... I don’t think God and creation were limited to any sort of mathematical governance.In conclusion, the existence of this mathematically structured universe does imply the existence of an intelliogent and conscious God; this universe cannot exist by itself, but it can exist only if there is a conscious and inteligent God conceiving it according to some specific mathematical equations.
I agree with you in regard to God’s existence. But, mathematics only provides a means for our after-the-fact interpretation of how things work... I don’t think God and creation were limited to any sort of mathematical governance.
I fail to see this as an obvious implication. How do you justify such a claim?
1. The abstract mathematical constructions describe the structure. This does not mean they are the structure.Because "if you choose to believe that the laws of physics really describes the intimate structure of the universe", such structure would consist of abstract mathematical relations, because this is what the laws of physics describe.
Atkins appears to be at least somewhat in possession of his faculties up to about the one minute mark. Then, things really begin to take a turn. Constructing (implying a builder) integers, which apparently had an intended purpose (implies a designer), from nothing, and then forcing (implying a source of energy--without origin, of course) them to operate apart from that purpose (necessitating chaos or intentional subterfuge, neither of which arise from nothing).In reading your post it reminded me of a short video with a great mathematician in Professor Lennox
1. The abstract mathematical constructions describe the structure. This does not mean they are the structure.
2. Even if they are the structure, you have failed to demonstrate that complex mathematical relationships require an intelligence in order to exist.
I have no issues with this. However, there is no requirement that a rational mathematical structure requires an intelligence to produce it.1) As I have already written, the laws of physics described abstract mathematical structures, therefore, if you accept that the laws of physics describe the nature of the universe, you must conclude that the universe has a rational mathematical structure.
You make an assertion without any foundation. Here, I'll do the same.2) The fact that abstract mathematical structures require an intelligenge in order to exist is obvious because maths is only the product of rational thought.
I cannot deny the evidence, since you have produced no evidence. I repeat, stating something is obvious is not evidence. If it is so obvious then step me through what leads you to that conclusion.I think you are simply denying the evidence; hence I will not reply any more to this kind of post.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?