[+Donny]

I wrote this not to long ago after reading Mathematics: Is God Silent. It was a very good book.



In the realm of mathematics, atheists run into two problems in even explaining the existence and accuracy of it. One is metaphysical (reality) and the other is epistemological (knowledge).
The metaphysical problem for atheists in mathematics is the argument of monism vs. pluralism. Radical monism states that there is one substance out of which all reality is made. The problem with this theory is that it destroys mathematics. For mathematics to work, there must be a plurality of things. If there is no difference between 7 and 9, mathematics is useless.
Pluralism, which opposes monism, states that there are only particulars and no abstract concepts. For example, we may see or experience five books or five cakes, but not an abstract “fiveness” separate from these experiences. The problem with this theory is that 5, | | | |, V, or five are all symbols or representatives, not the actual numbers. However, according to pluralism, these different symbols are different, because there is no abstract concept of “fiveness” that they represent. The result is that mathematics is destroyed, because this abstract concept is required for math (especially algebra). Mathematic proofs and equations are made up of symbols. They correspond to other symbols, and therefore represent the same thing as those other symbols. For example 5 * 6 = 30 and five groups of six is thirty both represent the same thing, but what is that thing? Without the abstract concept of “fiveness”, “sixness”, etc., they cannot represent the same thing, for the symbols are obviously different. “Six” looks different than “6”, yet according to math, they must represent the same concept or math is rendered useless. Thus, the abstract concepts of math must correspond with the particulars of math.
This problem leads us to the epistemological problem of mathematics. How do we know mathematics and why does it actually work? The first theory is that we know mathematics a priori (lit. “from the previous”, meaning without experience). They theorize that certain mathematical laws and equations are universally true. In other words, they are abstract, universal laws or truths. This begs the question, however, as to how or why these laws or truths correspond to empirical reality? Thy do these abstract truths correspond to the reality around us? Those who advocate this theory offer to us no answer.
The second theory is that we know mathematics a posteriori (lit. “from the subsequent”, meaning from or with experience). They claim that mathematical laws or truths are merely discovered through observation of empirical reality. There are a number of problems with this theory. We may be able to observe or proof through experimentation that 6 + 3 = 9. For example, one could take six twigs and three twigs and putting them in a group. However, has anyone ever experienced 98,765 + 367,987 = 466,752? Has someone gathered 98,765 twigs and 367,987 twigs and then counted them? Furthermore, how do we know these laws are universal? Has someone added six twigs and three twigs in on other planets? Have they in space? Has someone added them in another galaxy? What about in the depths of the ocean? Therefore, we can never fully know something in mathematics if it is known purely a posteriori, because all we could do was use induction to merely say “According to all experiences, 6 + 3 = 9”. There would be no certainty. Finally, they rely on generalization for mathematics. Six twigs and three twigs make nine twigs, but what about oranges? Is it the same for cars? Once again, they either rely on induction or simply saying “That’s how it is.” The former results in uncertainty, while the latter brings us back to the a priori theory.
The final theory is that mathematics is just language. We have defined the symbols 6, +, 3, =, and 9 so that 6 + 3 = 9. The glaring problem with this is that it still fails to explain why these symbols actually correspond and working empirical reality. This gives them the same problem as advocates of the a priori theory (the mind corresponding to reality). If they claim that these symbols are chosen because of their accuracy in empirical reality, they are given the same problem as the a posteriori advocates. What about the problems we haven’t experienced?
The only solution to the above problems is creation. God has created abstract concepts of mathematics, which correspond to our symbols and equations. He has created our minds to correspond to empirical reality, thus we know math both a priori and a posteriori. Unless our minds create reality (thus making it a subjective illusion, which also destroys mathematics), there must have been a Creator. We see a unity between our minds and outside reality, but the only way one can account for the universal mathematical truth of 6 + 3 = 9 corresponding to reality is by admitting a God.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Another question my philosophy professor cant explain is why electrons which have no brains, obey mathematically complex equations involving imaginary numbers (i)? This seems a little simplistic, until you consider that without a designer, why are the laws of physics consisyent and seemingly universal?

[R2D2]

All this talk about the "fiveness" reminds me of Plato....

[JerryLove]

Another question my philosophy professor cant explain is why electrons which have no brains, obey mathematically complex equations involving imaginary numbers (i)? This seems a little simplistic, until you consider that without a designer, why are the laws of physics consisyent and seemingly universal?

The same way rocks with no brains fall in accordance with mathmatical prediction.

The electrons simply do what they do, the math exists to try to model what they do. If the elecrons did something different, then there would be differnt math you were holding out as proof.

Most of donny's "argument" is the ontological argument for the 4th time in 30 days.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Here is the problem though Jerry, If random chance is how we got here, why is there a mathematical order? why does physics work? why is it not truely absurd? Who dictated (I would accept a what as a viable answer to this question too) that physics would obey methematical principles?

[Sean]

But you can use that same logic and ask, why does God know things work according to physics/mathmetics? You can't claim to know that God exist, and then say that math doesn't make work because it hasn't been tested on different planets. Its the same kind of circular reason as when people fighting the big bang theory say "Where did the gases come from?" The big bang theorist can ask "Where did God come from?" You can't just claim that God knows everything and expect that to prove everything.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

No, Im saying they point a flaw with Atheistic views of Mathematics. I beleive God is the master mathemetician and physicist who wrote the laws of physics and hung the earth on nothing. Not so circular, but my philosophy teacher cant reconcile that to any order whatsoever. Its not circular.

[JerryLove]

Here is the problem though Jerry, If random chance is how we got here, why is there a mathematical order?

If rhino's are shopping carts then why is my computer beeping?

What does any of that have to do with the behavior of electrons?

why does physics work?

The field of study "physics" performs no work. I cannot tell you why an event that does not occur occurs.

Who dictated (I would accept a what as a viable answer to this question too) that physics would obey methematical principles?

The field of study "physics" does not obey anything. As a field of study, it is incapable of performing actions.

No, Im saying they point a flaw with Atheistic views of Mathematics. I beleive God is the master mathemetician and physicist who wrote the laws of physics and hung the earth on nothing. Not so circular, but my philosophy teacher cant reconcile that to any order whatsoever. Its not circular.

So nothing can be orderly unless it was created by something? And God is orderly?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

the master mathemitician some would say. Pardon my semantics, sub in the laws of physics as they relate to physical objects for physics there if you prefer.

Laws of physics follow mathematical principles, and there is an orderly design. as is evidenced by the behavior of electrons trajectory. do you not see something odd about that? (my teacher is eleminative materialist btw)

[JerryLove]

Interesting point, coal forms from organic materials under intense heat and pressure.

I [resume that you are agreeing that God is orderly. And you have already said that order is proof of a creator. Therefore you have logically proven (if I accept your premise) that God requires a creator.

Laws of physics follow mathematical principles, and there is an orderly design.

All laws follow mathmatical principles, that is part of what it takes to be a "law". Somethin always true, but unrelated to math is not a law, but a fact, theory, or other similar device.

I don't see order in most of your examples, I see chaos.

is evidenced by the behavior of electrons trajectory. do you not see something odd about that?

Electrons simply do what they do. They behavve as is in their nature and as how they are influenced. Since their nature is constant, their behavior is constant. The entire purpose of physics is to model this behavior mathmatically.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

'I don't see order in most of your examples, I see chaos"

well in the fact that there is a set pattern that things follow (called mathematics) isn't that something of a mystery to you why the musical scale, rays of light, and behavior of electrons are all logically. If you don't I cannot see why not.

[maadio]

Originally posted by JerryLove
If rhino's are shopping carts then why is my computer beeping?

What does any of that have to do with the behavior of electrons?

Well if your computer is beeping or even operating at all, I'd say that has quite a lot to do with the behaviour of electrons, Jerry.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

LOL Great one plaid child

[JerryLove]

well in the fact that there is a set pattern that things follow (called mathematics)

formula != pattern != order.

There is a patter that the stock-market follows, but it is not orderly; nor is that pattern controlled by a being.

isn't that something of a mystery to you why the musical scale, rays of light, and behavior of electrons are all logically.

Why do things in the universe conform to the rules I have made to describe things in the universe?

Isn't is something of a mystery to you that all the words you use are made only of the letters you have? That all of the colors confrom to the color chart?

Of course, if I accepted your premise that this was orderly, and that ordely proves a creator who was orderly (God), then I must conclude that God proves he was created (ad infinitum).

If you don't I cannot see why not.

Because you seem amazed that 1+1-1=1; I understand why.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Jerry, the whole point, I am making, and not eve going to go further. Is why is the universe logical, to where Math works both on electrons and music, and seemingly every other physical object in the universe. Why is there a complete logic to it that way?