Scientific Argument for God's existence

[Speedwell]

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.

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 think you are simply denying the evidence; hence I will not reply any more to this kind of post.

Best regards

In other words, you are regarding Mathematical Realism as a given and will not entertain any discussion about it.

 

[mmarco]

In other words, you are regarding Mathematical Realism as a given and will not entertain any discussion about it.

I will not entertain any discussion about mathematical realism because I find it simply a non-sense; maths is obviously a product of rational thinking and it exists only as an abstract concept in a thinking mind. Denying this is denying the obvious.

When someone, in order to counter my argument, claims that maths exists by itself, it means to me that he has no valid arguments to offer.

 

[Speedwell]

I will not entertain any discussion about mathematical realism because I find it simply a non-sense; maths is obviously a product of rational thinking and it exists only as an abstract concept in a thinking mind. Denying this is denying the obvious.

When someone, in order to counter my argument, claims that maths exists by itself, it means to me that he has no valid arguments to offer.

I thought that was the argument you were making,

 

[SelfSim]

I will not entertain any discussion about mathematical realism because I find it simply a non-sense; maths is obviously a product of rational thinking and it exists only as an abstract concept in a thinking mind. Denying this is denying the obvious.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement because there is abundant evidence from the history of mathematics which clearly demonstrates that it was produced by human intelligence.
To argue against that, is total nonsense.

When someone, in order to counter my argument, claims that maths exists by itself, it means to me that he has no valid arguments to offer.

Further, I would challenge anyone to produce an objective test which results in the inescapable (objective) conclusion that math exists independently from the human mind.

The dance going on in the last page of posts appear to me to be carefully avoiding noticing that the 'physical universe' itself, which can be described using our abstract math, is also nothing more than a description of our perceptions. So when we describe it (using math or whatever), we are assigning the meaning (abstract or not) of 'physical universe', which then enables us to make sense of those perceptions.
In other words, the 'physical universe' is itself, just a model we've created, built on other models. Its models all the way down! This is fine because that's all that science tests and never does it test 'the thing itself' .. the latter of which is just another belief (on top of all the rest on the pile).

The notion that the 'physical universe exists' independently from our perceptions (models) is simply an untestable belief.

 

[SelfSim]

... You make an assertion without any foundation. Here, I'll do the same.
Mathematics can be the product of rational thought, or can arise spontaneously.

Technically speaking that is a scientifically valid (testable) model. It can be interpreted as invoking the current Cosmology model, Evolution and the documented history of Math .. all as testable evidence.
But its still a model requiring human intelligence to interpret.
And there is no test yet, which would lead to a conclusion that such a model 'exists' independently from a (normal) human mind, thinking scientifically. Such as notion is simply a belief .. which is yet another mind model (an untestable one, in this case).

 

[sjastro]

I see this has turned into one of those is maths invented or discovered discussions.

 

[SelfSim]

I see this has turned into one of those is maths invented or discovered discussions.{Link to Penrose interview}

Its amazing the kinds of pirouettes and verbal gymnastics he goes through in this interview to avoid confronting the obvious .. that being, that the tools for describing 'the world out there', (like math), are extremely accurate for describing his own mind's perceptions, (or observations), of 'the world out there'.
In other words, given that the source of the tools, and his view of 'the world out there', are one in the same, (ie: a mind .. this being objectively demonstrable from the words he uses), is their accuracy really so surprising?

There's no need for taking my word for all this either .. Its pretty much the same view that Hawking (and Mlodinow) produced in his 2010 book: 'The Grand Design' on Model Dependent Realism.

 

[DennisTate]

G-d / YHWH are words.... and are subject to definition.......

Fundamental and / or nearly fundamental energy would exist in a minimum of eleven if not twenty six dimensions of space - time.......

www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/

 

[mmarco]

The dance going on in the last page of posts appear to me to be carefully avoiding noticing that the 'physical universe' itself, which can be described using our abstract math, is also nothing more than a description of our perceptions. So when we describe it (using math or whatever), we are assigning the meaning (abstract or not) of 'physical universe', which then enables us to make sense of those perceptions.

I totally agree with the idea that all we know about the universe are our own perceptions and that the idea of something (the universe) existing outside us is an untestable belief.
By the way, also the existence of our own body is an arbitrary assumption, since also our body is a perception. According to the well known "Cogito ergo sum", which could be better rephrased as "I perceive then I am", all we know for sure is the existence of our own mind.
However, unless we choose solipsism (which means that all our life is nothing but a dream created by our own mind), we have to make the hypothesis that "something" exists beyond our own mind. In this case, I think that a reasonable question is: why all these perceived natural phenomena can be described and predicted so well through a specific system of mathematical equations?

 

[SelfSim]

I totally agree with the idea that all we know about the universe are our own perceptions and that the idea of something (the universe) existing outside us is an untestable belief.

And that's not really where I'm coming from. What I'm saying is that the idea that the universe exists independently from the very minds which assigned it with all of its attributes, is either: (i) itself an objectively testable model (ie: scientific) or; (ii) an untestable one (a belief).

Either way, both (i) and (ii) require our minds, and thus neither alternative when put to an objective test, stands as evidence that the universe exists independently from human minds. The only evidence produced thus far, supports mind dependence.

As such, there is no 'what exists outside' or 'what exists inside' (the 'inside' and 'outside' terms do not convey the same meanings as 'dependent' or 'independent')

By the way, also the existence of our own body is an arbitrary assumption, since also our body is a perception.

Well I'd say that's a pretty odd statement. I can do objective tests on what we call a 'body' and produce glowing results which would verify science's various models for what a 'body' is. This is all it takes for us to assert that 'a body' exists in science's objective reality .. all without any assumptions at all.

No assumptions are necessary when it comes to following the widely published scientific process. 'Assumptions' are part of the logical thinking process .. which is not science. When science uncovers some assumption, it tests it.

According to the well known "Cogito ergo sum", which could be better rephrased as "I perceive then I am", all we know for sure is the existence of our own mind.

However, unless we choose solipsism (which means that all our life is nothing but a dream created by our own mind), we have to make the hypothesis that "something" exists beyond our own mind.

I posted on this frequently misinterpreted aspect, in conjunction with solipisism, in another thread here:

Descartes said "I think therefore I am" (which begs the question: "Don't you mean you think therefore you think you are?"). This is not Solipsism either because it would say: "I know I am because I think, but I don't know anything else" (which the begs the question: "Do you count what you mean by 'I' and by 'existing', as among the things you do know, or among the things you don't know?"

The mind/model dependent (MDR) hypothesis says: "What I mean by 'thinking', and what I mean by 'being', involve a process of meaning generation that depends sensitively on how my mind works, including what I mean by 'how my mind works'. It may be less impressive, but that's the price of actually being 'true' (in the scientifically (objectively) demonstrable sense).

Basically, IMO, classical philosophical Solipsism is quite useless (ie: is a pointless waste of time) and is thus not what the Model (or Mind) Dependent Reality (MDR) hypothesis is all about. The MDR hypothesis is a scientifically formed, objectively testable one.

In this case, I think that a reasonable question is: why all these perceived natural phenomena can be described and predicted so well through a specific system of mathematical equations?

I don't think what you're noticing, is necessarily limited to math descriptions(?) Any operational description our minds can come up with, (of the universe and any of its corresponding predictions), will exhibit the same/highly similar consistencies .. Don't get me wrong, math modelling is probably the best operationally descriptive tool we've ever come up with .. but there's a bigger point worth making about the consistency itself.

See, human minds that are similar enough to agree on some observation, simply choose to not count any mind not similar enough to agree with them. That's how "objectivity" works, it is a class of consistencies perceived by enough people to make it a working concept to base science on.

But we already know there are consistencies in perception, none of this is any kind of test of something existing independently from a mind, because those who believe in the existence of some mind independent reality (MIR), can always just not count any mind that doesn't agree with them. So, in what other contexts do we find people discounting everyone who cannot agree with them for whatever reason?

Mind Dependent Reality (MDR) building is a communal task for like-minded individuals .. and so is belief in some MIR .. but only the former (MDR) is testable because it makes predictions that you can't get from any competing model, whereas MIR belief can be seen as failing objective tests over and over, because it can't include the need to use similar minds if it is supposed to be mind independent reality.

The thing about math equations in modelling, is that they don’t let us get away with discounting things that people don’t agree with (its self-tracking) .. so it fits the need of maintaining objectivity for the purposes of testing and predicting from those results.

 

[mmarco]

Well I'd say that's a pretty odd statement. I can do objective tests on what we call a 'body' and produce glowing results which would verify science's various models for what a 'body' is. This is all it takes for us to assert that 'a body' exists in science's objective reality .. all without any assumptions at all.

You are wrong; in fact in order to make a test you should use a measuring instrument (which existence you cannot prove, because it could be just a creation of your own mind) and then read the results, which become then perceptions of your senses. Therefore, the existence of your body, as well as the existence of every other physical phenomena, cannot be objectively tested. Solipsim cannot be ruled out on pure logical basis. But I think that solispsim is a totally unconvincing idea and it's not worth considering.

Science is based on the assumption that "something" exists outside our mind.

 

[Ophiolite]

Technically speaking that is a scientifically valid (testable) model. It can be interpreted as invoking the current Cosmology model, Evolution and the documented history of Math .. all as testable evidence.
But its still a model requiring human intelligence to interpret.
And there is no test yet, which would lead to a conclusion that such a model 'exists' independently from a (normal) human mind, thinking scientifically. Such as notion is simply a belief .. which is yet another mind model (an untestable one, in this case).

Precisely (up to point). And since all options are either untested or untestable it incorrect to assert that one is correct.

Caveats:
1. You say "It can be interpreted as invoking the current Cosmology model."
I say, it can be, but that doesn't mean it is the only option, or the correct option, therefore - in context - the statement has no value.
2. I see yo are still unable to distinguish between belief and possibility. You are seemingly unable to understand/accept that a declaration that a possibility exists, does not make the idea a belief. It requires a declaration that the possibility is reality.

I see this has turned into one of those is maths invented or discovered discussions.

And even though I recognised this from the outset I was still dumb enough to get involved. I know its not senility, because I was just as dumb when I was 23.

 

[SelfSim]

You are wrong; in fact in order to make a test you should use a measuring instrument (which existence you cannot prove, because it could be just a creation of your own mind) and then read the results, which become then perceptions of your senses. Therefore, the existence of your body, as well as the existence of every other physical phenomena, cannot be objectively tested.

See everything you just put forward there, depends on what you mean by 'exists'.
When last I checked, 'exists' is a human word which has a human assigned meaning (just like any other word used in describing a perception).
In the case of science, the results of the last best tested theory provides that meaning .. and I can always retest that meaning because every definition science uses, is operationally defined (meaning that it has already been objectively tested out).
So take a measuring instrument, which itself can easily be objectively demonstrated as being designed by human minds, (via for eg: human signed design documents).
Say in this case, (for testing one of the (living) body's attributes of a constant temperature), I nominate a thermometer as an example of an instrument which objectively exists. We know a thermometer exists in the scientific sense, because it has acquired a fully tested objecive meaning. Here is Wiki's definition (or meaning assigned to the word thermometer):

A thermometer is a device that measures temperature or a temperature gradient. A thermometer has two important elements: (1) a temperature sensor (e.g. the bulb of a mercury-in-glass thermometer or the pyrometric sensor in an infrared thermometer) in which some change occurs with a change in temperature; and (2) some means of converting this change into a numerical value (e.g. the visible scale that is marked on a mercury-in-glass thermometer or the digital readout on an infrared model).

Note my underlines. Everything underlined has an already clearly defined meaning which, themselves, have already been objectively tested out. This is nothing unusual .. its just how science admits things to its objective reality by giving words their already tested meanings and accepts them as 'existing', objectively. This is what 'Objective Reality' means. A thermometer thus 'exists' and I have given you what science means by that. (And it forms part of a test I can do leading to the assertion that a human body exists in objective reality).

Science is based on the assumption that "something" exists outside our mind.

(Re: the underlined bit): And what I say is that's untestable, and it took your mind to say that (which makes it mind dependent). Further the assertion that it does, is a belief where 'a belief' is operationally defined as: 'Any notion held as being true for any reason'.
Can you however, cite the test which produces the evidence which conclusively shows us that what you say, does not have 'the fingerprints' of the human mind all over it? (Ie: unlike your above assertion about science being based on some untestable 'assumption' (a belief) or another)?

Untestable assumptions are the domain of philosophical logic. A typical example might begin with: 'If xyz exists then ...'. The widely documented and taught scientific method contains no such assumptions of: 'If something exists outside our minds .. then continue doing science'.
There are no such preconditions you could point to (from legitimate textbooks or reputable sources) simply because science wouldn't work the way it clearly does, if it contained such untestable pretenses. Science would attempt to test that.

Religions can get away with this however .. because they deliberately posit the (assumed) untestable 'existence' of truth .. (which automatically differentiates what follows, from being science).

 

[Ophiolite]

The widely documented and taught scientific method contains no such assumptions of: 'If something exists outside our minds .. then continue doing science'.

False.

 

[SelfSim]

Precisely (up to point). And since all options are either untested or untestable it incorrect to assert that one is correct.

I agree .. (and you might also note that I didn't assert anything as 'being correct' anyway).

Caveats:
1. You say "It can be interpreted as invoking the current Cosmology model."
I say, it can be, but that doesn't mean it is the only option, or the correct option, therefore - in context - the statement has no value.

Ok then .. given that our current Cosomology Model (LCDM) is our current best tested one for the universe, I can legitimately come close to saying that my statement, (containing its testable assumption of inclusion of LCDM), is 'scientifically true' .. where the operational definition (which you can test) of what I mean by 'scientifically true' is: 'Our last best tested model'. (And you might also note that I didn't assert anything as being 'the only option' or 'the correct option', anyway).

2. I see yo are still unable to distinguish between belief and possibility. You are seemingly unable to understand/accept that a declaration that a possibility exists, does not make the idea a belief. It requires a declaration that the possibility is reality.

And I say that such a 'declaration' tracks back to a posited existence of an untestable 'truth', and therefore I can legitimately apply the operational test of a belief as being : 'Any notion held as being true for any reason'. You may not like this .. but its still legitimate science.

And even though I recognised this from the outset I was still dumb enough to get involved. I know its not senility, because I was just as dumb when I was 23.

Denying yourself of the wisdom readily available throughout life experiences, by means of engagement in conversations, is not some sentence imposed by others (or some believed, higher, overseeing intelligence) .. unless you believe in the existence of such a sentence.

 

[SelfSim]

False.

.. (A commonly posited untestable concept which is taken as being the opposite of an equally untestable posited concept of the existence of 'truth').

Please cite your evidence from a reputable source.

 

[Ophiolite]

Denying yourself of the wisdom readily available throughout life experiences, by means of engagement in conversations, is not some sentence imposed by others (or some believed, higher, overseeing intelligence) .. unless you believe in the existence of such a sentence.

I'm not at all surprised that you fail to recognise the application and function of seemingly self-deprecating humour, designed to call attention to the inadequacy of both sides of the argument an individual is commenting on.

 

[Ophiolite]

.. (A commonly posited untestable concept which is taken as being the opposite of an equally untestable posited concept of the existence of 'truth').

Please cite your evidence from a reputable source.

Certainly. Just as soon you demonstrate, with appropriate citations, the actuality/reality/existence of this "thing" you call truth.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm not at all surprised that you fail to recognise the application and function of seemingly self-deprecating humour, designed to call attention to the inadequacy of both sides of the argument an individual is commenting on.

.. Whatever ...

 

[SelfSim]

Certainly. Just as soon you demonstrate, with appropriate citations, the actuality/reality/existence of this "thing" you call truth.

'Twas you who invoked: 'False' .. (and not me).
I have already given the way science interprets 'truth'.