Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Can we have an honest discussion about science and God?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Many of us are sick of poisoned wells. Anyway, here’s this:


That was their argument because, until recent years, there was not, in the strictest sense, the kind of evidence science requires. To be sure, there were claims of such evidence, but however sincere those claims may have been, they were not persuasive enough to convince an honest skeptic. The gold standard of science, stated informally, is that a new paradigm is accepted when the evidence is solid enough to convince an objective, unbiased, and qualified person.

It turns out that scientists are as biased as anyone else. Their biases are being exposed by an increasing number of younger, more open-minded scientists. These newcomers are breaking free of the unscientific philosophy, the doctrine of physicalism, that presently dominates their disciplines. They are willing to challenge the notion that nothing exists except the physical. The old guard is resisting. The entrenched establishment is making ever less credible excuses for holding on to its resolute belief that only the physical exists.

Robert Arvay, “Old-guard scientists reveal their biases as new scientists suggest evidence for God” at American Thinker

Even if you don’t believe in God, can you at least believe that 2+2=4? That puts you on one side of a growing cultural divide.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

and

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

Comments
Viola Lee, trying to put some meat on his fallacious claim that "The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 has nothing to do with God", states.
How about this, BA: The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 has nothing to do with any particular religious beliefs. People of all religious beliefs learn that 2 + 2 = 4 by the age of six or so, and mathematicians of all religious beliefs learn and use the math that follows from there, despite the fact that they have radically varying ideas about the nature of metaphysical reality.
HUH? How in the world does appealing to the fact that humans are uniquely made 'in the image of God' possibly support your claim that "The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 has nothing to do with God"? The Bible, like it uniquely 'predicted' the creation of the physical universe, the Bible also explicitly states that human beings alone, among all creatures on earth, are uniquely made in the image of God.
Created in the Image of God By Wayne Jackson Excerpt: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness ... And God created man in his own image ... male and female created he them” (vv. 26-27).,,, https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1519-created-in-the-image-of-god
In fact, the biblical belief that God created the universe, and that we alone, among all creatures on earth, are uniquely made in the image of God, and that we can therefore dare to understand the universe, was a major reason why modern science arose in Medieval Christian Europe, and in Medieval Christian Europe alone,
The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications - Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing. As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson. Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion - Michael Egnor - June 2011 Excerpt: The scientific method -- the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature -- has nothing to so with some religious inspirations -- Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature (that enabled the rise of modern science). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html
And a major part of being 'made in the image of God' is our unique ability to understand, and use, mathematics. Thus for you to appeal to our universal ability to understand and use mathematics, contrary to what you may believe, only further strengthens my position and further refutes your claim that "The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 has nothing to do with God". Viola Lee, apart from God creating us in His image, you simply have no explanation as to why humans should have this unique universal ability, among all creatures on earth, to understand and use mathematics. In 2014, a group of leading (Darwinian) experts in the area of language research, authored a paper in which they admitted that they have, “essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,”
Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) Casey Luskin added: “It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html
The late best selling author Tom Wolfe was so taken aback by this honest confession from leading Darwinists that he wrote a book on the subject. Here is a general outline of his main argument;
“Speech is 95 percent plus of what lifts man above animal! Physically, man is a sad case. His teeth, including his incisors, which he calls eyeteeth, are baby-size and can barely penetrate the skin of a too-green apple. His claws can’t do anything but scratch him where he itches. His stringy-ligament body makes him a weakling compared to all the animals his size. Animals his size? In hand-to-paw, hand-to-claw, or hand-to-incisor combat, any animal his size would have him for lunch. Yet man owns or controls them all, every animal that exists, thanks to his superpower: speech.” —Tom Wolfe, in the introduction to his book, The Kingdom of Speech
In other words, humans have, completely contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking, managed to become masters of the planet, not by brute force, but simply by our unique ability to communicate information and also to, more specifically, infuse information into material substrates in order to create, (i.e. intelligently design), objects that are extremely useful for our defense, basic survival in procuring food, furtherance of our knowledge, and also for our pleasure. And although the ‘top-down’ infusion of immaterial information into material substrates, that allowed humans to become ‘masters of the planet’, was rather crude to begin with, (i.e. spears, arrows, and plows etc..), this top down infusion of immaterial information into material substrates has become much more impressive over the last half century or so. Specifically, the ‘top-down’ infusion of mathematical and/or logical information into material substrates lies at the very basis of many, if not all, of man’s most stunning, almost miraculous, technological advances in recent decades.
Describing Nature With Math By Peter Tyson – Nov. 2011 Excerpt: Mathematics underlies virtually all of our technology today. James Maxwell’s four equations summarizing electromagnetism led directly to radio and all other forms of telecommunication. E = mc2 led directly to nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The equations of quantum mechanics made possible everything from transistors and semiconductors to electron microscopy and magnetic resonance imaging. Indeed, many of the technologies you and I enjoy every day simply would not work without mathematics. When you do a Google search, you’re relying on 19th-century algebra, on which the search engine’s algorithms are based. When you watch a movie, you may well be seeing mountains and other natural features that, while appearing as real as rock, arise entirely from mathematical models. When you play your iPod, you’re hearing a mathematical recreation of music that is stored digitally; your cell phone does the same in real time. “When you listen to a mobile phone, you’re not actually hearing the voice of the person speaking,” Devlin told me. “You’re hearing a mathematical recreation of that voice. That voice is reduced to mathematics.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/describing-nature-math.html
What is more interesting still about the fact that humans have a unique ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’ through the ‘top-down’ infusion of immaterial information into material substrates, is the fact that, due to advances in science, both the universe and life itself, are now found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.
“The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.” Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College – a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics. 48:24 mark: “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” 49:45 mark: “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1 Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw
It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are ‘made in the image of God’, than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our ability to infuse immaterial information into material substrates.
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
A more convincing proof that we are ‘made in the image’ of God, (rather than just the fact that we uniquely possess an ability to understand and use immaterial information), is the fact that God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was God. And that just so happens to be precisely the proof claimed within Christianity. And although Christianity is certainly rich in apologetic resources that Christians can utilize to defend their Christian faith, my favorite ‘proof’ that Jesus is exactly who He claimed to be, (namely God incarnate), is the Shroud of Turin,,, which just so happens to be, by far, the most ‘scientifically’ scrutinized ancient relic on the face of earth.
The evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity keeps growing. (Timeline of facts) – November 08, 2019 What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know – Myra Adams and Russ Breault https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html Shroud of Turin – list of scientific papers https://www.shroud.com/library.htm#papers
Verse:
Luke 24:39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” C. S. Lewis said it well: "The Son of God became a man that men might become sons of God." God became a man so that you might become God's child."
bornagain77
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
Querius: You missed the point. As AaronS1978 referenced in Orwell’s 1984, the assertion that 2+2 = 4 is racist has nothing do with “transcendent truth,” but rather it’s about what the Woke mob says is truth. If a Woke person holds up four fingers and tells you that it’s five, you had better agree that it’s five and make yourself truly believe it, or you will be cancelled! Uh huh. IF anyone is actually doing that or considering doing that it will be laughed out of every hard science department on the planet. Don't worry about the stupid things you think someone might do. Why don't you talk with those people and find out what they really want?JVL
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT
AaronS1978: they forced her to quit after they hired her Her employee rights that were violated As I said, I think she definitely had a legal case against them. JVL do you live in America? Not anymore. Because LGBTQ rights are blasted every single day especially on Facebook Don't go on Facebook then. Or unfriend people whose views you find objectionable. If you don't like the product (Facebook) then don't use it. The whole incident like with Chick-fil-A was huge and on the news for a very long period of time, months The same with the cake shop incident Which is fueled an entire controversy surrounding religious rights I remember the cake shop situation in the UK and it did get some press. But most people thought the shop owners were prejudiced and biased and (I believe) some heterosexuals decided not to frequent that shop anymore. So, while I do believe private businesses and individuals can express their own personal prejudices (as long as they're not providing a public service) the rest of us can choose to stop buying their products. Then there’s the entire problem with being doxxed and other forms of social media bullying I mean do you get on Facebook or any other form of social media because you just get bombarded with that stuff ? I don't know what 'doxxed' means. Most of my Facebook friends are pro-LGBTQ rights but I don't find it offensive or intrusive. It's just someone's opinion; I happen to agree with most of what they support. And my friends and relatives who don't agree tend to be polite and respectful and don't start shouting and complaining; at least not on my wall often. I do have this one cousin . . . In this case none of my questions are being sarcastic I didn't think they were. If you don't like the things you see on Facebook you have some choices other than just complaining. If you have some problems with some social trends then you have the same rights as everyone else to express your opinion and to try and influence and introduce legislation. But you have no more right to 'win' than anyone else. And I would hope you get treated with respect and deference as I would expect you to treat those with whom you disagree. Things change: 200 years ago slavery was still a protected institution in the US. Blacks and women had no rights to vote. Labourers were frequently abused and exploited by their employers. Abused women and children had very little chance of recourse or escaping. I think 200 years from now people will scratch their heads wondering why giving gays and lesbians and trans-people the same rights as everyone else was so controversial. In fact, many, many people under the age of 25 already feel that way.JVL
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: You’ve asked this several times and now you’re claiming that “since we don’t let them be, that’s why they want to impose their standards on us”. So, it’s our fault that they attack and impose? If we “leave them alone” everything will be fine. They can change society to suit themselves and nobody should say anything about it. As I've already said: I have never felt personally attacked or imposed upon. Nor do I think the reasonable requests for equal treatment under the law by members of the LGBTQ community should be ignored. Having grown up in the 60s when women were not allowed to run in marathons and mixed marriages were still a bit ehhh in some areas I think we should continue to make sure that all members of our societies are treated equally and fairly. They should be allowed to marry, to express they orientation in public to the same extent as heterosexual couples, etc. I just think they should be treated the same way. What's wrong with that? But there’s your double-standard. You wonder why people oppose gay-lesbian-transgender activism, but then you expect that that group should have all the privileges to change things without any opposition. No, they should be treated equally, just like you or me. Look at the marriage issue: it's not just gay and lesbians driving that issue, many, many heterosexuals now think they should be allowed to marry. It's now the cultural norm, at least where I live. Same-sex couples are portrayed in video games, in television programmes, on the news, in politics. And I think that's good because that's fair and equal treatment. The LGBT position attacks moral and cultural norms. Children are expected to learn certain things on their behalf. Why not teach children that all people should be treated fairly and equally regardless of race, creed, faith, sexual orientation, etc? Isn't that they way it should be? And I do not understand how that can possibly hurt you or change your own personal morals and norms. So, why can we not be free to oppose that attack? Why is my opinion of less value than theirs? I don't think you are being attacked is the point. You are being asked to treat everyone the same way. Your opinion is just as valuable as anyone else's but you can't expect to impose your own personal views on everyone else. Again, what is wrong with treating everyone the same way, granting them the same legal privileges and rights? What harm does that do?JVL
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT
Seversky @ 93 "Actually, free will is a much greater problem for Christians since, as has been noted before, their own Bible provides evidence that it cannot exist." It is the side of the Darwinists who claim there is no free will, only the illusion that it exists. There is nothing beyond the physical and nothing that has any true meaning. Every action is based on nothing more than prior action. There is no meaning behind any words, since meaning implies the mind cannot exist. If the Christian Bible claims free will does not exist, I suspect you have never read a single book, including the first book of the Tanakh, Genesis. Genesis 4:7 is the first verse of many throughout the Tanakh, what Christian's refer to as the Old Testament, and continues on through what Christians refer to as the New Testament. Sefaria has the closest translation from Hebrew to English. It is the first mention of sin as well as the first mention of free will. To put it in perspective of when 4:7 takes place, 4:8 is the moment Cain murders his brother. Bereshit (Genesis) 4:7 Surely, if you do right, There is uplift. But if you do not do right Sin couches at the door; Its urge is toward you, Yet you can be its master.” https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.4.7?lang=bi&aliyot=0BobRyan
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT
Viola Lee @83, Thanks for the attribution, but it wasn't me. I still think you're missing the point (or at least skew to it) because objective reality itself is what's being *rejected* by the Woke mob. Thus, your arguments based on objective reality are irrelevant to them. Regarding your comments about the existence of God, consider that we've only been able to come up with wildly improbable scenarios to get everything in the universe from nothing (i.e. non-existence) not to mention the mind boggling amount information contained in DNA and epigenetic codes, complex interrelated chemical cycles, and cellular complexity that dwarfs that of modern cities or anything we humans have created. It's wildly improbable that the information assembled itself from chaos contrary to entropy without intelligent intervention. So, how would you determine the one true super-sentient God from all the others? The majority of scientists in the field of Quantum Mechanics now believe they have enough evidence to conclude that reality as we know it is a simulation. So, another question is why would the one true super-sentient God want to observe us in a simulation? -QQuerius
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT
Viola “Vivid, much more seriously: is it objectively true that there are 180° in a triangle. Whatever your answer, explain your reasoning.” Viola you asked from me to give you my definition of what I meant by “objectively true” I gave it to you “that which cannot be untrue in this world or any possible world. “ It seems that you are making the case that there are possible worlds where 2+ 2 = 4 is untrue ,am I misreading you? Vividvividbleau
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT
Bornagain77/53
The problem for Viola Lee is that Materialists/Physicalists and/or Darwinian atheists, or whatever you want to call them, simply have no place for free will within their worldview.
Actually, free will is a much greater problem for Christians since, as has been noted before, their own Bible provides evidence that it cannot exist.Seversky
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT
Vivid, much more seriously: is it objectively true that there are 180° in a triangle. Whatever your answer, explain your reasoning.Viola Lee
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
So the fact (opinion?) that it is not objectively true that one can't stick one's hand through a brick wall is based on one's ability to imagine a possible world where it might not be true? In that case, do you accept that it is not objectively true that 2 + 2 = 4 because I (and Querius, and Rovelli) can imagine possible worlds where it might not be true? If so, it would seem odd to me to base "objective truth" on the capability of our imagination to speculate on "possible worlds".Viola Lee
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
Viola “Vivid, just to keep playing, is it objectively true that a person can not stick their hand through a brick wall?” I think I read somewhere that in a 4 dimensional world a basketball can be turned inside out without breaking the plane of the sphere so I guess it might be possible in a different world. Vividvividbleau
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
Vivid, just to keep playing, is it objectively true that a person can not stick their hand through a brick wall?Viola Lee
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
Vivid, if you accept the premises that I mentioned in 83, which are the foundation of the number system: "Our number system, from which 2 + 2 = 4 follows, is based on two axioms: there is a distinct unit “one”, and every unit has a successor that is “one more”, then 2 + 2 = 4 cannot be untrue. It is total speculation, but my bet would be that if there are intelligent beings anyplace in the universe, they will have developed an analogous fact, although of course words and symbols will be different. I really can't think about "all possible worlds". As Q and Rovelli above have suggested, if there were some world that was a totally monistic whole, with no individual entities of any sort, then 2 + 2 = 4 wouldn't apply. But that kind of metaphysical speculation can't be taken very seriously except as philosophical play.Viola Lee
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
Viola Lee
As I have said, our number system, from which 2 + 2 = 4 follows, is based on two axioms: these is a distinct unit “one”, and every unit has a successor that is “one more”.
Right. The first is the Law of Identity - one of necessary first principles. The laws of excluded middle and non-contradiction apply. However, all of this assumes an acceptance for rationality and logic. One has to accept the axioms and the assumption that logic is a superior means of thought than illogic or irrationality is. Not everybody believes that.Silver Asiatic
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
How about this, BA: The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 has nothing to do with any particular religious beliefs. People of all religious beliefs learn that 2 + 2 = 4 by the age of six or so, and mathematicians of all religious beliefs learn and use the math that follows from there, despite the fact that they have radically varying ideas about the nature of metaphysical reality.Viola Lee
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
Viola “Maybe you should explain what you mean by “objective” here, as you appear to have something in mind that I haven’t addressed.” It cannot not be untrue in this world or any other possible world. Vividvividbleau
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
Q, it was Rovelli in a article News posted
Rovelli goes further, calling into question the universality of the natural numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4… To most of us, and certainly to a Platonist, the natural numbers seem, well, natural. Were we to meet those intelligent aliens, they would know exactly what we meant when we said that 2 + 2 = 4 (once the statement was translated into their language). Not so fast, says Rovelli. Counting “only exists where you have stones, trees, people—individual, countable things,” he says. “Why should that be any more fundamental than, say, the mathematics of fluids?” If intelligent creatures were found living within, say, the clouds of Jupiter’s atmosphere, they might have no intuition at all for counting, or for the natural numbers, Rovelli says.
Viola Lee
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
Q, you write, "As I said before, materialist monism would not accept that there are two individual things that can be added to each other. “Everything is one”. There is no separation between one bunch of molecules and another – they are all connected by molecules so to say that there are “two things” would be false." As I have said, our number system, from which 2 + 2 = 4 follows, is based on two axioms: these is a distinct unit "one", and every unit has a successor that is "one more". Therefore, it would not be applicable to monism. In fact someplace back in a math discussion, someone (maybe you) posted the thoughts of a mathematician (I forget who) who that is somehow intelligent beings lived in a completely fluid universe where there were no distinct units, then they might have a notion of 2 + 2 = 4. But these are philosophical and not practical speculations that aren't related to the current situation, I don't think.Viola Lee
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
Well if you are not going to back up your claims, then don't make them! You are the one who made the blanket statement “The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 has nothing to do with with God.” That simply is a factually incorrect statement! Opinions about other religions notwithstanding!bornagain77
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
I'm not interested in Biblical apologetics, BA. I also didn't say there could be another true religion. I said there are many other people of different religious beliefs who believe their religion is true, and that your religion is not.Viola Lee
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
re 70 to Querius: When I wrote at 18 "None of this politics, sociology, pedagogical theory, design philosophy, or theology has anything to do with the purely mathematical fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is true", you said I "missed the point." I think I was making the point that the political et al points being made by others were irrelevant to the pure mathematics. Did I miss a point, did you miss a point, or are we just making different points and not very interested in the points that the other is making?Viola Lee
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
Viola Lee, I provided an argument for why the Judeo-Christian religion is the true one. You offered an 'opinion' that there could be another true one. But provided no argument Again, your answer, i.e. opinion, is evasive and certainly not compelling. And to repost an argument I made at post 6 for the truthfulness of Christianity in particular https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/can-we-have-an-honest-discussion-about-science-and-god/#comment-721280bornagain77
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
re 75 to Vividblue: what I described seems pretty objective to me. Maybe you should explain what you mean by "objective" here, as you appear to have something in mind that I haven't addressed.Viola Lee
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
BA writes, "Let’s just stick with the Judeo-Christian religion ..." Let's not. I know that is your religion, and like many you are absolutely convinced it is the correct one. Others differ: some think theirs is the correct one, and some think all religions, to some degree or another, are all different expressions of some universal truths. The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 is available to all, no matter what their religious beliefs are.Viola Lee
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
Viola Lee
It is not about whether 2 + 2 =4 is true or not.
The logic for that is more clear: 1. Cultural artifacts and norms can be changed for a variety of reasons 2. The idea that 2 + 2 = 4 is based on cultural, philosophical norms 3. Therefore, if there is a reason to change the norms underlying the formula, then the formula would not be true. They could (but haven't yet) gone on to say that racism is a good reason to change the norms. As I said before, materialist monism would not accept that there are two individual things that can be added to each other. "Everything is one". There is no separation between one bunch of molecules and another - they are all connected by molecules so to say that there are "two things" would be false.Silver Asiatic
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
Viola “Vividbleau: BTW is 2+ 2=4 objectively true? We’ll it’s certainly not just an opinion. If we agree upon a few certain starting points then it can be demonstrated that it is in fact, without a doubt, true.” Is it objectively true? Vividvividbleau
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
Q “You missed the point.” Yes as I said they are clueless Vividvividbleau
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
Viola Lee, That was an evasive answer and therefore not compelling in the least. Let's just stick with the Judeo-Christian religion which uniquely predicted the creation of the entire universe and thus God, with a capital G, would necessarily be the 'architect' responsible for the 'miracle' of the mathematics that describe this universe, and the 'miracle' of our immaterial minds being able to understand those immaterial mathematics. But hey, if you disagree that it is a 'miracle', I suggest you argue with Wigner and Einstein, not me.
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
In fact, Einstein went so far as to chastise ‘professional atheists’ in process of calling it a ‘miracle’,
On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952 Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.” -Albert Einstein http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine
As to my claim that the Bible alone, among all the religious beliefs on earth, uniquely predicted the creation of the entire universe, Of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a completely transcendent origin of the universe. Some later 'holy' books, such as the Mormon text "Pearl of Great Price" and the Qur'an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact. (Hugh Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5)??
The Uniqueness of Genesis 1:1 - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBXdQCkISo0 The Most Important Verse in the Bible - Prager University - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BqWdu1BnBQ “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” - Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation - Fred Heeren, Show Me God (Wheeling, Ill.: Daystar, 2000), “The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.” - Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978? "The question of 'the beginning' is as inescapable for cosmologists as it is for theologians...there is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing" - George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time, 1993, p.189. - George Smoot is a Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE "Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." - Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – ‘God and the Astronomers’ - Pg.15 - 2000
Verse:
Genesis 1:1-3 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
bornagain77
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
Irrespective of the validity of the argument (I think both 2 and 3 are faulty, and therefore so is 4), this is not about math itself but about how people have access to and use math in a wider socio-political context. It is not about whether 2 + 2 =4 is true or not.Viola Lee
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
I think the anti-math proposal as given is logical: 1. Racism is bad 2. Giving privilege to one culture or race is racism 3. Our math was created by one culture that is given precedence over all others 4. Therefore, our math is racist and as a result, oppressive That syllogism follows logically. I reject the second premise but someone could debate that and remain consistent.Silver Asiatic
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply