Does God exist? Modern science shows he must, bestseller argues
Category: News & Politics
Via: hal-a-lujah • last year • 165 commentsBy: Ben Spencer, Science Editor
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Science and religion have never been easy bedfellows. As Thomas Jefferson put it in 1820, priests "dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight". Five centuries of scientific breakthroughs — from Galileo to Darwin to Crick and Watson — have eroded our belief in the divine.
But now, according to a new book, a "great reversal" is under way. Science, its authors argue over 580 pages, has come full circle and "forcefully put the question of the existence of a creator God back on the table".
In a striking challenge to the academic consensus, two French authors, Michel-Yves Bollore and Olivier Bonnassies, argue that the latest scientific theories lead to only one logical conclusion: an all-powerful deity created the universe and all life within it.
Their argument has already gained traction. The French edition of their book God, the Science, the Evidence, published in 2021, and subsequent translations in Spanish, Italian and Portuguese, have sold more than 400,000 copies. The English edition, which will be published next week, has had an initial print run of 110,000.
Readers have long sought answers about their origins. Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion has sold more than three million copies. Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time has sold 25 million. The Bible, of course, is the bestselling book of all time, with an estimated seven billion copies printed.
These authors — like Dawkins and Hawking — consider themselves men of science. Bollore, 79, from Brittany, is a computer engineer who has founded a series of successful heavy industry, engineering and mechanical firms; Bonnassies, 59, from Paris, studied science and maths before a career as an entrepreneur in the French media industry.
Both are also men of faith. Bollore is a lifelong Catholic. Bonnassies, who did not find his Christian faith until his twenties, said he thought before his conversion that "believers were irrational people", adding: "God, the Resurrection, the Virgin Mary — I found it crazy." Yet it was logic, he said, that won him around: "The surprise was there were many rational reasons to believe in God."
Despite their beliefs, they insist their book is not about spirituality. Bollore, who has lived in west London for the past 15 years, said: "This is not a book about faith or religion. Who God is, what does he want, what does he think, what does he say: that's very interesting, but it's a question of religion. That's not what this book is about."
Instead, the authors have written a critique of materialism — the theory that all reality, including our origins, thoughts and consciousness, can be explained solely by physical matter and physical processes.
The materialist narrative for the beginnings of the universe and life on earth is so full of holes, he and Bonnassies argue, that every modern scientific advance increases the strength of the case that a "creator" is the only rational explanation.
The authors' ideas have received support from unexpected quarters. The renowned physicist Robert Wilson, who was jointly awarded the Nobel prize in physics for the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, agreed to write the foreword to the book. "Although the general thesis … that a higher mind could be at the origin of the universe does not provide a satisfying explanation for me, I can accept its coherence," he wrote. "If the universe had a beginning, then we cannot avoid the question of creation."
Their book explores key scientific theories such as the Big Bang, the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics and the human genome. Each detail was checked with a group of leading scientists to ensure the arguments could not be challenged on the basis of scientific inaccuracy.
The conclusions they arrive at pose a fundamental challenge to the orthodoxy that underpins modern science. For the past century, for example, scientists have known the universe is expanding. If stars and galaxies are always moving further apart, logic dictates, the universe must have started at a single point, in a state of immense density. In 1931 the Belgian theoretical physicist Georges Lemaitre termed this the "primeval atom". We now call it the Big Bang.
But if all matter originates from that single explosion, and materialism dictates there is nothing outside of matter, what caused the bang?
For most of the 20th century physicists got around this metaphysical headache with another theory: that of the "big crunch". This held that the universe goes through an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction; a few billion years after a Big Bang, the universe would stop getting bigger and start shrinking. Drawn inward by the overwhelming force of its own gravity, the universe would squeeze into a single point, the theory went, triggering another Big Bang, then another crunch, in a repeating pattern.
This neat explanation, however, was discredited in the 1990s when astronomers discovered two distant supernovae were further apart than they should have been. The expansion of the universe, they realised, was not slowing down — as it should have if the big crunch theory held true — but actually accelerating.
"The theory doesn't work," Bollore said. The laws of motion, he said, lead to the conclusion that there must have been a single beginning, a starting point to all physical existence. "Nothing is infinite," he said. "The reasonable mind must hold that our universe has one beginning."
He argues that the only rational explanation for a single point is for something outside the material world, an external being that could have started it — a creator God.
Another key mystery that can be explained only by the existence of some universal God, the authors argue, is the start of life. "DNA appeared on earth 3.8 billion years ago, and it was a technological marvel," said Bonnassies. "All living beings on earth: bacteria, human beings, plants, animals — they are all coded by this same DNA."
According to the theory of evolution, this incredibly sophisticated data storage system — 40,000 billion times more dense than the most advanced computer today — emerged from the primordial soup quite by chance. The authors write: "While we still do not know how that gap was bridged, or a fortiori, how to replicate such an event, we do know enough to appreciate its infinite improbability."
Bollore acknowledged that the book does not present proof of God's existence. "You cannot prove it," he said. "You have evidence for one theory — the existence of God. And you have evidence for the other one, which is the non-existence of God. The best you can do is to compare the two sides of the scale."
But he said that many areas of science require as big a leap of faith as that demanded by faith in God. "We are all believers," he said. "Believers in God believe, with some evidence — and believers in materialism, they believe in plenty of things which are a little bit weird."
Perhaps surprisingly, the biggest critics of the French edition of the book have not been scientists, but priests. "Some theologians say we don't want evidence of God because it would reduce the merit of faith," he said. "'We don't want proof', they say. 'Because proof would mean that we don't have faith.'"
Bollore and Bonnassies want a great debate with scientists about their ideas. Last month they held conferences with leading astrophysicists, neuroscientists and philosophers — believers and nonbelievers alike — at Princeton and Berkeley in the US, and plan similar events at Oxford and Cambridge in the coming months.
Bollore insisted this is not an evangelical project; he is not trying to convert anyone: "I say again, this is not a book about faith or religion."
But he said a debate about the origins of the universe raises questions about the meaning of life itself, adding: "I think that everybody should ask themselves, at some point in their life, 'Are we just the result of chance and necessity? Or are we more than that?'"
God, the Science, the Evidence, by Michel-Yves Bollore and Olivier Bonnassies, will be published by Palomar on October 14 at £22
UKScience
Tags
Who is online
126 visitors
How does one talk themselves into such stupidity? Using the theory of a point source for the beginning of our existence as we know it to justify the existence of a god? "The reasonable mind must hold that our universe has one beginning." Umm, hello? It is the most amateurish reductive reasoning to simply kick the can down the road and let the buck stop at our existence, while totally ignoring the obviousness that whatever god that supposedly “created” our existence must also reside in its own existence.
Some brave novelist should expand upon this pathetic attempt to justify god by writing a story from this god’s point of view. The god can explore its own internal conflicts about how it and its existence and environment came into existence. Rinse and repeat for an infinite number of subsequent novels with the same theme. Might be a good project for AI to keep it busy for eternity.
The answer to life,the universe, and everything is 42. /s
faith is for those that lack any facts.
Faith is also for those that discount any facts that interfere with that faith.
I was raised in by a fundamentalist Baptist household, Sunday School and Church attendance were forced upon me until I was 16. I unwillingly gave in and got baptized, so I was then automatically "saved" This resulted in a lot of guilt early on because I never could come to believe that a being or entity that created the whole vast Universe would put two people on this pitiful little planet and lead them into temptation...the whole good versus evil thingy. Why would a loving god cause a global flood, of which there is no evidence, and to add injury to all the insults, be judged and sentenced for eternity in the lake of fire.,
None of it ever made sense, but I can understand what happens to many people who get brainwashed into believing this nonsense at an impressionable age. The mental and emotional pressures caused by this religious abuse on kids can be tremendously damaging and long lasting. After watching Joseph Campbell's lectures years ago, it all started to become clear. This need to believe in a supernatural being or creator seems to be universal in the human psyche
This need to believe in a supernatural being or creator seems to be universal in the human psyche
Not this human. I was born the way I still am today, despite the attempts indoctrinate me through adolescence and adulthood. Even if there is something to a collective consciousness beyond our physical life, there is simply no reason to think that there’s some massive intrinsic bureaucracy organizing the sum total of every human life into a category of good or evil. It’s clearly a human invention intended to treat their fellow humans as cattle.
Belief in God stems from one elemental question - "how did I get here?". The original impulse was not based on the desire to control or rule over anybody, it was "how did I get here and why are we here?"
Long ago I took my four year old nephew down the street to the park. As he was sitting on a swing rocking back in forth he asked me about God. He hadnt been brainwashed by society, he was asking the eternal question that wells up within every human being.
I never had that question in my head at any age, because the logistics were obvious to me no matter how immature or mature I was. If every person who ever lived and died ended up continuing to exist in some final realm, the result would be unimaginable chaos and eternal agony. The only thing a living entity could look forward to upon death is a chance to start it all over again through some kind of reincarnation, not being confined to an overcrowded eternity as an extension of the person you spent a tiny blink of time living as.
My wife was part of her father’s second family. He was in his fifties when she was born, starting a second family after his first wife passed away. When he died her mother was still a young woman. She was quite religious, and when she finally passed away we joked about how awkward heaven would be for her as an eternal third wheel.
Hadn't he? If his mind went immediately to a deity, and likely specifically the Abrahamic one, rather than a cause entirely within nature, then I think we have to consider the possibility that he had.
Well, look on the bighter side. The good news is that that may save you from being deported to a horrendous prison in EL Salvador!
Certainly not universal.
Two things our evolving mind still struggles with;
Am I unique
and
What happens when I die.
Religion Attempts to answer this question with fantasy so we can go out and be productive.
Whether that is growing nutritious food for our fellow humans
or serving in a murderous cartel or military, the non-existent creator has no opinion.
You talk with complete certainty, which is not supported by what we do or do not know about God.
Why a god, and which one of the tens of thousands that we have worshipped throughout history? How about faeries? World was created by a unicorn, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, Santa Claus, etc., etc., etc.
Of all the thousands of religions that have existed, most, if not all, had creation stories as part of that religion, and there is no evidence showing one more accurate than the other, or any for that matter.
What who knows about God?
Consider the possibility that different people know different things about God.
(Or perhaps more accurately, what people think they know about God.)
I never had that question. I know i am here because my parents conceived me. It's that simple. Some people get hung up on philosophical musings of little importance. The better question is "what do I do now that I am here?" That question is more pertinent to how we want to live our lives in the time we have.
Philosophical musings are of little importance? Huh?
What is actually of little importance is what is going on billions of light years away on the other side of the universe. Science, in the end is just knowledge, it doesnt explain the great question of existence - why? - at all. Philosophy at least makes the attempt.
Back in the day, as they say, science and philosophy were integrated and philosophy was used to give science a more humanistic context. Now we have atheists proclaiming the supremacy of science, but to what purpose? It seems to be because they can.
The universe is always expanding, science teaches us. The best response to that is "so what?" Does an expanding universe mean an actual thing to anyone? It is a concept of no practical use at all. But is "science".
Philosophical musing are just that, musings. They might make for thought experiments, but ultimately answer nothing. And in this day, science leads to discovery and new knowledge. Exploring the real world and the reality we exist in is far more interesting and constructive.
So what? No one begrudges science that is kept in perspective. Philosophy speaks to the heart and soul and science is incapable of that.
And, so what? It's nothing more than feel good rhetoric.
I dont think philosophy and science need to be in conflict, but apparently you do.
I'd rather live in a world of philosophers than a world of people who spend all day thinking of how to advance artificial intelligence.
Philosophy likes to ask questions, but answers none and accomplishes nothing practical. Science seeks to answer question and accomplishes things worthwhile. I'll stick with scientists who think about advancing intelligence rather than philosophers with pretend to be intelligent.
I would much prefer people spend their time trying to uncover facts to help us understand nature. AI will be abused because it is like any other technology. But it will also do great things. AI is a key to fighting diseases such as cancer.
I am really astounded by the lack of interest in philosophy on this forum.
AI is going to eventually lead to dystopia. That is the only possible outcome. The reason for this will be because philosophy and right and wrong will fade out of the picture. There are many many novels set in the future that describe dystopia and there are very few that describe a paradise.
Why do you feel there must be a "why" to existence? Perhaps existence just "is".
Novels are fiction, just stories. What does philosophy have to do with right or wrong? I'm not philosophically minded but I still know right from wrong, which are just social contracts anyway. AI is a technology and like any technology, any benefit or harm depends on how it's used. But dont worry. AI can also be used to answer philosophical musings too. So philosophy is covered. I see it being g more of a benefit to science and practical applications.
Can you provide 1 answer that philosophy has ever provided?
LOL.
Have you ever heard of the broad concept of man's search for meaning ?
-
Of course existence "just is" , for people who think that way.
We exist. Just like every other species on the planet. That's it. who says there is or why does there have to be a meaning behind it? "Meaning" is whatever we make it to be.
Meanwhile, actual breakthroughs and discoveries is done by science. Science for the win.
I dont object to science, although many scientific discoveries mean next to nothing to people who are not predisposed to interest in them . Who the hell cares that the universe is expanding? It is meaningless. The same can be said for a lot of things we learn from science.
Doesnt science suggest that meaning, like love, is just a chemical reaction in the brain?
No. Science explains the biochemical nature of love, or any emotion. Its all about the brain.
Yes, I know some people dont care for science or are hostile towards it. That's why we have a progressing dumbing down in this country.
I think thats what I just said.
I have nothing against philosophy.
Hardly. It will most definitely be the enabling agent of a paradigm shift, but to go 100% negative is not realistic. AI, like electricity, engines, computers, internet, smart devices, etc. could very well turn out to be net good.
Why??
Dystopia (negative, dramatic events) is far more interesting (in terms of entertaining fiction) than a paradise (which would make for a boring novel).
The nuance, I believe, is that science explains how things work and does not take a position. Thus science does not suggest (as in ... hold a belief) but rather reports on what appears to be true.
And? Is that the be all and end all? To listen to some it is.
Never said that philosophy didn't have its place in the world. Just asked what question it has ever answered.
Yet one of the most well known pieces of science fiction does promote a type of paradise. Star Trek vision by Gene Roddenberry has no more wars (human vs human), no more starvation, no more geed (no more money),no more racism. After Roddenberry died, others have reintroduced conflict to try and increase ratings. But Roddenberry's original vision was closer to a utopia on Earth.
Keep it mind conflicts arose from other species that involved humans, rather than humans: The Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, the Dominion, ect.. as Capt. Sisko once said, "On Earth, there is no poverty, no crime, and no war. You look out the window and you see Paradise." ST:DS9, "The Maquis, Part 2"
Maybe it is. What difference does it make?
The purpose of science is to understand reality and then use that understanding to make our lives better.
The purpose of philosophy (as we are using the term here) is to try to provide logical (albeit speculative) answers to (currently) unanswerable questions.
There is obviously room for both and they have little to do with each other. The closest tie, I suppose, is with theoretical physics where academics attempt to provide rational explanations for observed phenomena by extrapolating from what we know. That is a form of philosophy. It does not mean much when dealing with unfalsifiable hypotheses, such as string theory. Still, it means quite a bit when a genius gets a falsifiable hypothesis right such as Einstein.
There are multiple scientific reasons for emotions such as love. Biology, a science, can answer the how... whereas anthropology and sociology (still sciences) can answer the why.
Yes, and they specifically stated that they needed to create those conflicts due to ratings. Nobody wants to watch a space station series if nothing happens during it.... This was after Roddenberry also.
I started observing the church from an alter boys' point of view.
Cash made things work at the parish level.
An friend wouldn't marry unless there was an annulment on record, her's cost $345, a relative in Chicago handled it sight unseen, just sign here.
I have a 40 year old son from a second marriage that the catholics refused to recognize - they told his mother he was a bastard who would never be recognized as having a soul.
A Navy Chaplain felt otherwise and baptized all of my children at once, mainly to assuage my mother and grandmother's superstitions about purgatory and hell.
Through luck I have lived a long life and watched young men die in traffic accidents as well as relatives in hospitals and that lightning incident on the island 30 years ago.
Life is just an electrical current inside of all living things.
Millions of living things are born and die every day without a thought of the religions of mankind.
The planet is literally littered with the wreckages of previous cultures and religions who failed and faded away.
So in closing, I will decide for me JR, no one else.
They won't change the facts.
Even TOS & TNG had their moments of conflict, but was always resolved. DS9 had a more diverse group of individuals interacting, which would naturally lead to conflict. But that gradually improved over the seasons, as the characters were well written. Garak was the best character of all.
I have thought about all of this over the course of my 76 years, and have growingly concluded that the existence, or non existence, of God will never be proven, for one pretty simple reason - God is a Supernatural entity by definition, which means it comes from a place at least partially outside "nature". Nature is another word for the existence we as conscious beings experience. WHATEVER we conclude about the existence of God will always be incomplete because we can only measure and reason within this existence. Not a satisfying conclusion, but the only one I can see as being the truth.
I do believe there is a God, but I dont think we can understand its purposes.
Do you believe that god resides in its own vacuum? Would it know how it got there? Why even waste time deliberating something so disconnected from our own reality?
Maybe it is a waste of time and maybe it isnt, we wont ever know.
It doesnt bother me one bit that people believe in God, in a way its none of my business. There are so many atheists who seem personally offended that people believe in God.
What should not be done is to use religion to hurt other people, which sadly is a practice that has waxed and waned over the millennia. Belief in God needs to bring peace of mind or it is pointless.
Belief in God needs to bring peace of mind or it is pointless.
I wish that were the case. Unfortunately, with the advent of the internet and social media religion is much more of a cudgel than a comfort.
But how about people who have actually experienced God?
1- Why would you think your god is supernatural?
2- There has never been any evidence that the supernatural even exists. (James Randi still has his million dollars)
So you feel that god is not powerful enough to make his existence known? Kind of strange since he was seen all over the place in the old testament.
I don't know. The existence or not of a god cannot be substantiated.
I have experienced events which cannot be explained. That doesn't prove either way the existence or not of god.
I think that far to much energy is expended on this question in order to validate claims of morality in appeals to authority.
In my experience, those who claim to know most fervently are the least likely to actually know.
That is certainly true if there is no God (can't disprove a negative) but if a God as most people describe does exist and can do anything, then it could reveal itself to all humans in a way that would be impossible for humans to reject. Though to be fair, any alien being that comes and displays the ability to, or at least seem to, break the known laws of physics, would be considered a God to humans. As Arthur C. Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", and what are God's supposed powers if not 'magic'.
No. Any "celestial" evidence of God would be rejected by atheists as an unknown natural phenomenon. And any "voice" from the heavens would be rejected as a trick or mass psychosis.
It is not true that all atheists refuse to consider potential evidence of God. There are plenty of atheists who are not convinced a God exists based on rational consideration of extant evidence.
It is not true (although this is a common theist perception) that atheism = anti God. For some, yes, for all, no.
Well, most cannot get this fascist, anti fascist thing correct either.
There is no evidence of God to be rejected. Hearing voices is a sign of a psychological condition.
In your experience.
But are you sure your experience is more valid than their's?
My first words were, "I don't know."
Many people have relayed experiences to me that they ascribe to God. I have yet to hear of one where the experience was not about the person interpreting an experience as being God. That is, their interpretation of the event led them to believe that they had interacted with God. Nothing in the interaction itself was indicative of God.
Call me doubting. I feel that the revealed religions are too ripe for con-men and charlatans to not have been affected by outside forces.
I saw an article the other day scientifically suggesting that Deja vu could actually be the future briefly entangled with the present. Wouldn’t that be interesting if this phenomena were real and that similar entanglements were the cause of all perceived experiences ascribed to god(s)?
This is just another attempt, in a long line of attempts, for religious people to justify their belief despite science not giving them a single atom of actual proof of a creator being. As they admit early on, "Both are also men of faith. Bollore is a lifelong Catholic. Bonnassies, who did not find his Christian faith until his twenties". They then set about trying to dismantle one lone theory called "materialism".
That's a supposition being made by the authors based on a single theoretical line which ignores the thousands of other theories as if it's the ONLY one and if they can poke holes in that then, they won the debate, right? This article certainly make it appear that way.
Of course that's the only conclusion they can draw, because they are pre-indoctrinated to believe. Did they bother investigating dark matter or dark energy? Of course not! Why would they when they were only debating materialism which claims only matter exists.
I'm fine with believers clinging to their beliefs, but don't drag science into it. The claim that "modern science shows he must" (referring to God) exist is not only leaping from zero evidence of anything scientific to actually assigning a supposedly all-powerful cosmic being a gender which is just monumentally moronic.
I was hoping for some actual reasoned thought with such a headline, but it turns out it's nothing but a bunch of hot air, though I'm not surprised.
What drives this, IMO, is the desire for comfort . It is unpleasant to hold that we are merely transient biological forms that will at some point in time cease to function (die).
Period!
All that we were while alive is now lost forever. All the dearly departed are gone forever.
It is quite unpleasant to face the harsh reality of one's existence. The thought truly sucks.
Religion gives hope and thus comfort. It allows believers to at least question the hard end of existence and for many gives them a sense of security (albeit almost certainly false). The comfort in and of itself is a good thing. Unfortunately, one must believe the man-made stories for that comfort to manifest and they are entirely unconvincing to me (and others).
I take more comfort in the idea that we are all in the same boat. Whatever it is that happens when you blink out of this existence is the same for every sentient human that has ever lived. Maybe it’s nothing, maybe it’s something, but we will all get to find out someday. Wasting your life trying to live a certain way because you think you know the unknowable answer to an impossible question is just squandering the opportunity you have.
I just deal with reality. I accept the fact that I will die. I accept the likelihood that there is no afterlife.
Basically, I accept the harsh reality and live my life while I have it.
I don’t see it as a harsh reality. We all have a general expiration date. A harsh reality is finding out about something that will impact your expiration date, like incurable disease. Getting old is exhausting, even without health issues. Someday I think I’ll be ready for a deep sleep.
Unless, of course, we get reincarnated.
Or wake to find ourselves, and all other humans that have ever existed, on an alien world along side a single river that flows around that entire world.
Sure didn't notice anything approaching the scientific method.
I get really irritated with the Intelligent Creator idiots who think they are using science to justify God's existence. If your faith requires proof of a deity then I say that you have no faith
This quote typifies the argument. Basically, the authors are focusing on areas where science does not have good answers (yet) and declaring ... aha, ergo God!
This is a God of the gaps argument. There is nothing (at least in this seed) that suggests any new information as to why there must be a sentient creator God.
That's what I got out of it. More philosophical than scientific. As far as philosophical pseudo science is concerned a better argument would be the Law of Conservation - Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
this is a passage from the end of the novel by Herman Hesse, Siddartha. It is a description of the death of the Buddha.
Just going by the article, there doesn't seem to be anything new there. Same old arguments from incredulity and god of the gaps crap.
I hope that was a lay person's mistake by the author of the article and not the authors of the book. The word explosion should never be used. It's understood as an universal expansion of space itself, not an outward explosion from a central point within existing space.
That's incorrect. It was only ever one of several possibilities, another of which was a perpetual expansion and ultimate heat death – a "big chill" – which looks like the most likely at present.
Only? Really? And there you see the motive is proselytizing.
But not in its complete form all at once like magic. Hundreds of millions of years were available for the development of complexity through heritable modifications. To be honest, the basics of DNA aren't all that complicated (only 4 nucleotides encode everything). And let's not forget about simpler self-replicating strands of RNA as a precursor. Infinite improbability my ass. More proselytizing.
It's funny how creationists keep using the same worn out arguments over and over again, no matter how many times they've been addressed and/or debunked in the past.
SSDD
Do you believe in zero? Does zero exist? Zero cannot be sensed, measured, or empirically quantified. Zero has not been around since the beginning of humans. Zero is a logical abstraction that was discovered in the 3rd century B.C. We all know (and hopefully understand) the importance of zero.
Zero is something that represents nothing. Zero is the boundary of existence. But can the existence of zero be proved by physical measurement and empirical observation?
Is zero so very different than God?
So God is zero?
Plus or minus.
Does that mean atheists cannot believe in zero?
It means (obviously) that most people are quite capable of understanding 'the absence of something'. If I present you with a picture of a table with no apples on it, you surely understand the concept of 0 apples. You understand the concept of zero and believe that zero makes perfect sense in the formal systems of mathematics.
There might indeed be the absence of any god. Zero gods is profoundly different from one god. As profound as the difference between 0*n and 1*n where n = arbitrarily large number.
That is the logical argument for zero. But that is an abstraction and not not tangible proof of zero. 'Making perfect sense' is not a reproducible, empirical observation of zero that provides quantitative evidence of the existence of zero.
Zero is not a tangible entity within our existence and cannot be understood through empirical observation. How is that different than God? The concept of God is not more or less abstract than the concept of zero.
Zero is a concept just like imagination is a concept. The argument that God is real because God is just like any other intangible concept is laughable.
My prior post already provided my answer. I am not going to keep repeating myself.
Zero is a representational placeholder for the concept of nothing. Does nothing exist? Is there empirical quantitative evidence through observation that nothing exists?
Your prior post did not provide any empirically observed tangible evidence for the existence of zero. Without tangible evidence, belief in zero would require something close to faith.
You're missing the point. "Nothing" is the absence of anything existent. Using the "apples not on the table" example, you can through observation determine that there are no apples [in existence] on the table.
Another take, for those of us who "came of age" in the 60s:
Conspicuous Only In Its Absence
You are ignoring the point that absence is not a tangible entity that can be observed by science. Mathematics is not a science. The logic and abstract reasoning of mathematics shares many similarities with the logic and abstract reasoning of theology.
Science cannot quantify zero, absence, or nothing. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of zero, absence, or nothing.
I will let ChatGPT handle this attempt by you to argue for the sake of arguing:
What is being described by ChatGPT are reference points and baselines. These are measurable quantities that are arbitrarily assigned a placeholder value of zero. But those reference points and baseline values are not actually zero. A tare on a scale establishes a zero point but we know that reference point also establishes negative mass or anti-mass or negative existence which is not real.
A null result is not a zero result. A null result indicates that an existing state has not changed. The original state continues to exist, it is not absent, or zero.
As ChatGPT indicates, zero is a mathematical concept and science does not prove or disprove mathematical concepts. That's because mathematics utilizes logic and abstract reasoning rather than empirical observation.
Science cannot empirically observe zero. Science cannot produce tangible evidence for the existence of zero. Simply assigning zero to any observed quantity or state establishes a condition where zero becomes the equivalent of infinity. Accepting the arbitrary assignment of states of existence to a placeholder of zero to prove the existence of zero establishes the condition where zero is simultaneously no thing and all things.
ChatGPT disagrees with you again.
I think you should just try your argument with ChatGPT. Might be instructional.
Atheists do not believe in god/s. Zero is just a quantification.
Exactly, the entire above discussion about zero somehow proving God is a moronic distraction attempting to make something, literally, out of nothing.
I use Google Gemini 2.5 Flash. ChatGPT is slow, easily mislead into blind allies, and generally fails to allow any intellectual exploration of any subject. And it's absolutely necessary to establish the boundaries of inquiry. As your presented session illustrates, ChatGPT is jumping between science and mathematics to alter the context of the inquiry. Mathematics is not science. ChaptGPT is not epistemologically or etymologically consistent.
ChatGPT is describing the scientific validity of using of an abstract quantity, zero, as a starting point or zero-point calibration. ChatGPT's outline follows the same reasoning and philosophic logic that Michel-Yves Bolloré and Olivier Bonnassies employ to apply the concept of a creator deity to scientific understanding of the universe. ChatGPT has confirmed that Bolloré's and Bonnassies' reasoning for a creator deity as a starting point is scientifically valid.
Science can appropriately utilize the abstract concept of a creator deity the same way science uses the abstract concept of zero.
BTW, zero-point calibration does not provide information about the initial state. Infinity can be the initial state and zero-point calibration would assign zero to that initial state. So, zero and infinity being equivalent would be scientifically valid in that case. Science is not mathematics. ChatGPT is jumping back and forth between science and mathematics which is philosophically incoherent.
So, zero as quantification of a null set or nothing does exist. Therefore, the null set or nothing also exists. And it would be logically valid to assume that other non-null quantities can emerge from zero.
Wouldn't that mean that zero could be considered a creator quantity? Zero could share attributes with a creator deity?
What does zero quantify? Zero must represent something since it is unique.
Apparently, you did not get the hint. I have no interest in arguing for the sake of argument. Gemini has far more patience. Try your argument there.
I haven't been arguing with you. I have been arguing with ChatGPT. You've only participated as a machine operator.
Correct, and I am done providing that service. So move along, Nerm.
The one using the word "zero" gets to determine what it quantifies. If I say "There are zero apples in this basket" I determined what the "zero" was quantifying, which were apples. I didn't say "There is zero in the basket" though some might use that turn of phrase to describe what to the naked eye is a basket with nothing, neither apples nor oranges not anything else visible, in it. And if one were to think deeper, they would know that what might appear to be a basket with 'zero' things in it, is actually quite full of particles and dust and other things we're not able to see with the naked eye. Empty space is not empty.
With all that said, the concept of zero, the ability to understand having one apple versus having zero apples, clearly does not prove the existence of some invisible all-powerful God even when we accept that empty space isn't empty space. And you continuing to ask a question that clearly you can't answer yourself with any actual thought out reasoning to prove some point is just an act of futility. Either that or you just like arguing for no reason.
Argument - Monty Python
Why should I move along? It's my thread.
What you are describing is zero-point calibration, isn't it? In zero-point calibration, the zero is a placeholder signifying a starting condition; the zero does not represent a specific quantity. Which means that the zero in a zero-point calibration does not possess an inherent quantity. The zero point on a Fahrenheit thermometer was calibrated by the lowest achievable temperature of a mixture of water, ice, and salt (freezing point of brine) as determined by Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit. The zero on the Fahrenheit scale represents a reproducible baseline state and not an actual quantity.
Claiming that zero proves God is a spurious argument of your own creation. What I have contended is that the methodology and logic used to prove the existence of zero would be applicable to proving the existence of God.
If you prove zero exists then the same logical arguments and scientific observations can be used to prove God exists. That's what I've contended.
Does zero exist? Prove it!
And your contention is complete nonsense. The methodology and logic to understand a word which is used to represent the absence of whatever thing you're quantifying isn't a "thing" that is proven to exist. Zero, without the descriptor of what its defining, does not exist on its own, so clearly, you're just here to argue because you have made exactly zero valid arguments so far in this discussion. All I'm hearing is just spurious conjecture parroting fictional logic loops which are only logical to the illogical. Perhaps it's a matter of perspective, but I'm not willing to stick my head up someone else's ass just to see what they think is a valid point from their perspective.
Move along to someone else.
I am not going to deal with someone arguing for the sake of argument. And I am done serving as an intermediary between you and ChatGPT.
So, Nerm, move along means to find someone else with the patience to engage in a pointless, ridiculous argument for the sake of arguing or (better still) just argue with an AI tool since it will have unlimited patience.
So, zero does not exist? We know zero is an abstract mathematical concept that is a linchpin for our understanding of reality. There is a zero even if it cannot be proven by empirical observation.
Either zero is a unique entity or it is not. Zero represents a null set, the absence of quantity, or nothing. Zero is also the mathematical midpoint between negative infinity and positive infinity.
Zero as a unique entity can be proven with abstract reasoning. But can the existence of zero be proven through empirical observation? Can science prove the existence of zero? Is zero a tangible presence in our reality?
If science cannot prove the existence of zero through empirical observation then that would demonstrate that science cannot explain everything in reality. Science being unable to empirically prove the existence of zero would suggest that some parts of our reality are not the result of causality.
You have not been arguing for the sake of anything. You have used ChatGPT to argue on your behalf.
I've laid a foundation that demonstrates that science, based on the causality of materialism, cannot possibly displace or replace a creator deity. Science is blind to some aspects of the reality we experience. And confining humanity to the material limitations of science impairs our ability to explore and understand all of our reality.
If one is going to post an AI answer to a question, it would also be helpful to see the question that generated the response.
I believe I understand the point Nerm_L is trying to make but I believe he is making a categorical error in making it. That is, Comparing God's existence to the existence of the concept of zero. Since TiG introduced arguments from ChatGPT, I thought it might be interesting to ask my own questions of it. This and the following post are the results. I took a statement from Nerm_L and turned it into a question, which will be highlighted in red. In the following post, I will ask a different question that I think adds context necessary for ChatGPT to give a response relevant to the subject.
Not on its own it doesn't, because it is merely a word used to describe the absence of something, so we have to define what that something is before "zero" of it can even be an abstract mathematical concept.
Nothing, or "zero" cannot exist outside of the context of something. Before the big bang there was, as far as we can tell, nothing, because we have no record of matter before that point in time. But the fact is "nothing" or "zero" didn't exist before matter which, as stated, didn't appear, or at least no evidence of it existed, before the big bang which is when "nothing" was given meaning because there was all of a sudden "something". Now that "something" aka matter aka energy existed; it was possible to contextualize "zero" because now one could say there is "zero" matter. Before something is proven to exist, like matter, the word "zero" has no meaning. You might as well be saying "goblin turd" without knowing what the abstract fantasy concept of a goblin or a turd was.
But this is obvious to even the most apathetic laymen so it's fairly clear you're just wanting to argue whose invisible nightmare monster is the scariest, and I hate to break it to you, but mines THE scariest! It's this massive orange turd monster that assumes human form, molests a bunch of women but has enough money to avoid any repercussions, that convinces the dumbest fuckers in America to vote for it for President, not just once, but twice. And this crazy fucking nightmare bitch tits is cheered on by a mass of inbred bigots wanting to take America back to a time when separate but equal was acceptable and when white conservative Christians were large and in charge of pretty much every aspect of American life. Wow, what a fucking nightmare, am I right?...
In this post I ask ChatGPT a question that fundamentally changes its response because it now has the necessary context to reply in a manner relevant to the conversation. Again, my question is highlighted in red. Nerm's quotes are highlighted in blue.
In the end, While I understand what Nerm_L is attempting, he's making a category error. But that doesn't mean the point he's attempting is not valid. If you like, you can paste the same questions into ChatGPT and, if it responds the same way as it did me, it will ask you, in the end, if you want to make an argument starting from the concept of zero for the argument of the necessity of God. I didn't bother posting it here because, in my opinion, one needs a rather high degree of understanding in philosophy to understand what ChatGPT returned than I think any of us possess. It involves mathematical and philosophical concepts I haven't seen before.
It's more than just a "category error". It's a philosophical error. It's trying to extrapolate complexity out of absence.
In this context it does. If he's making the claim that the logic behind the abstract concept of zero proves a potentially unlimitedly complex being exists, then it's just not there. It's like saying the stain on the bottom of your shoe after you went to a country fair proves the mayor had sex with your wife. It does? I'm not saying the stain isn't evidence of that, but you've got a LONG fucking way to go in regard to evidence to make such a claim. The same with saying the logic used to understand "zero" somehow proves God exists.
Forget about zero. The more important question is why math works at all. How does it happen that it can describe the universe we observe so well? That is, how does math, which is a human creation, work in such a way we can build things, predict the movement of planets, create medicine and so on? Maybe because it was designed using mathematical principles?
And, even then, that same math that describes our universe (general relativity) doesn't work for explaining quantum physics, which requires a fundamentally different kind of math. How do we get the observable universe when what underpins it requires a different, yet still coherent math? Again, as if it were designed that way? Else, how could math describe it?
Possibly. If it were me, my argument would be based on why zero even works in the first place. See 8.1.33 .
What I am contending is the same logic and abstract reasoning used to prove the existence of zero can also be used to prove the existence of God.
My mistake was to use the term "God" instead of the term "creator deity" which is what Michel-Yves Bollore and Olivier Bonnassies are using.
Let's cut to the chase. I fed the following set of statements into ChatGPT to check categorical consistency and philosophic reasoning:
Math works and we can trust is precisely because we have no evidence of anything in the universe that is allowed to ignore the math of universal constants. Because matter exists, zero exists and therefore math exists. There is no evidence of anything creating this matter, all we know is that it came into existence at a point in time, perhaps at the time when time began because like zero, time also came into being with matter because there was no way to calculate time before matter/energy existed.
Math is only a "human creation" in that humans gave it a name, but it existed long before humans just as "zero" humans existed inside the suns core long before humans understood or defined "zero", or "humans" for that matter.
Just because quantum physics has its own math doesn't mean that math proves an invisible all-powerful deity exists.
You're falling into that age old trap of "Because this is concept of the universe, math and quantum mechanics is complex; we must therefore adopt the belief that an infinitely more complex creator being MUST exist!". It's pure unadulterated idiocy to just assume such conclusions and act as if that leap is somehow logical.
I copy and pasted his 'argument' and asked ChatGPT to critique it.
I understand what you were going for in your argument, and I mostly agree with it. You just needed to set the parameters of the argument better, as you do here.
I think this is incorrect. 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of whatever the universe is doing or not doing.
You appear to think math is an emergent property of our universe. There are quite a few people who think you're wrong. For instance, were we able to transport ourselves to a hypothetical universe where the conditions were such that atoms never formed, or even elemental particles, math would still work just the same. That is, it isn't a product of our physical universe, it simply does an amazing job of describing it.
I would argue otherwise. First, time is not like numbers. Time, for instance, can be shown to be dependent on space in which things have the potential to happen in order to exist. Numbers and math, on the other hand, need only a mind in which to exist. It can't be conclusively shown that said mind needs either space or time in which to exist. While it may be true that we, in our universe, require those things, we cannot say what conditions apply to anything outside our universe.
No, it doesn't prove God. However, it can certainly be considered as evidence for God. That is, if math is not an emergent property of our universe then that implies that the reason math describes our universe so incredibly well is because math was used to design it.
Mathematics has (like many other things such as language, society, biology, ...) evolved. This is part discovery (finding properties of mathematics such as prime numbers) and invention (e.g. Calculus, tensors, ...). Mathematics is a formal system of human invention to express precise models, produce explanations, make predictions, and operate on those models. Its ability to describe the universe (or anything else) is a result of centuries of work by human beings. And mathematics continues to evolve.
There is no great mystery here. No more than the mystery of natural language being so capable of describing almost anything we can imagine.
Not sure what you find so remarkable. It has evolved to suit these purposes. And yes it was designed using 'mathematical principles'. It started with basic counting, evolved into arithmetic, and throughout the focus on precision (and thus formality) has been a driving principle.
Reality at the quantum level is substantially different than that at the cosmological level. Thus it is not at all surprising that the mathematics used to describe these areas of science differ.
Still not understanding why you this as evidence of design. Newtonian physics (and mathematics) works great for most everything we deal with but we need Einstein's General Relativity (and associated mathematics) to deal with very large and very fast physics. This is simply applying math differently based on the circumstances. Why is this seen as remarkable to you?
I beg to differ. Your example doesn't work because language is a system of conventions. Everyone agrees that this symbol or this sound for "trees" represents trees. Math doesn't do that. 2 + 2 = 4 is not something that is agreed upon by convention. It is true whether people agree on it or not.
Largely untrue. Einstein's equations, for instance, addressed phenomena we hadn't even thought of yet or allowed us to predict solutions to phenomena we did encounter but did not understand. We even have math that has no discernable applications at this time.
Because the universe appears to be designed using math, which explains why math describes it so well.
Yes, we can identify two things and then identify two more things. And if we count them we will have four things altogether.
There is nothing magical about this. Here mathematics (in particular, basic arithmetic) is nothing more than a language for mapping distinct items we perceive into a simple model and operating on that model.
Math is a human invention. The reality that we describe with mathematics is not our invention, but the language and operations that we call mathematics were. Similarly, we did not invent quantum physics but the Large Hadron Collider is something human beings invented to understand and manipulate particles.
The magical world of Harry Potter needs only a mind in which to exist.
Our universe is of course incredibly complex. But our current level of mathematics is incredibly sophisticated. Currently it is fair to say that mathematics today is capable of expressing pretty much anything that we can conceive in our minds.
Claiming that the ability of the current state of mathematics to model our current understanding of the universe means that our universe was designed with mathematics is a staggering leap of logic.
Language is far more than mere conventions. It allows us to express ideas beyond what we can express mathematically. We can, with natural language, express a funny story that makes people laugh. Not so in mathematics. But whatever we describe mathematically can be explained using natural language. And indeed it is.
Natural language is at least as expressive as mathematics; arguably more so. What mathematics offers beyond natural language is precision and computation.
Thing is, our universe can be described using mathematics only because it has discernable patterns. The patterns as a whole are profoundly complex, and we clearly will be discovering patterns in perpetuity. But it is this notion of regularity, of patterns, that is (if anything) significant.
You can deem the presence of patterns as evidence of a creator or you can see this as a consequence of very primitive substances interacting with each other, and naturally patterns will emerge (this is a very popular topic of computer science and is evidenced clearly in physics, chemistry, biology, and sociology ... for starters).
I think many (too many) people go way out on a limb trying to find anything to justify belief in a creator.
Earlier in 8.1.33 I said " That is, how does math, which is a human creation...". I misspoke, as it doesn't reflect what I actually think about human endeavor and math. I should have said something more like "math is a human recognition of something that already exists." I say this because we don't invent math. Rather, math reveals itself. For instance, we cannot "invent" 2+2=5 and have math mean anything. Einstein didn't "invent" E=MC 2 , he discovered it.
The language, yes, but not the math. You appear to be holding the position that the reality we observe drives, or even invents the math, but that isn't the case. As said previously, 2+2=5 holds true regardless of what we observe.
Correct. However, all you're really pointing out here is that a mind is necessary for abstract concepts to be understood.
Maybe. Maybe not. I can conceive of levitating a book off a table, but it would be hard to imagine how mathematics could account for realistically doing so.
Don't know why you would think so. Current understanding isn't really relevant, anyway. If math is its own thing and not an emergent property of the universe, then it's hardly a staggerying leap of logic. It's rather simple, actually. If the universe appears mathematically designed then perhaps it is, is hardly a leap of logic, let alone a staggering one.
Then perhaps you should provide evidence for your position. The rest of your paragraph doesn't do so. Language works because a group of people agree upon the meaning of certain words, in both speech and print. Without that, the rest of your paragraph, or our ability to even have this discussion, would be non-existent.
I don't disagree, but you're trying to compare apples and oranges.
Exactly. As if it had been designed by mathematics, yes?
This is not a case of people "going way out on a limb" trying to find anything to justify belief in a creator. In fact, if math is not an emergent property of the universe, which a case can easily be made for, then it is simply what the data suggests. That the universe was created in accordance with mathematical principles. It would be those who deny such that are going way out on a limb to prove. Like equating language with math.
LOL
You are conflating the discovery of a law of physics (the relationship between energy and matter) with the creation of a formal system to model concepts (mathematics). Einstein discovered what already exists in nature. Mathematics is a formal system for representing what already exists in nature (and beyond).
The notion of 2+2=4 is simply modeling reality with numbers. It is no more extraordinary than modeling reasoning with formal logic. We can model facts as 'true', known non-facts as 'false' and the rest as undetermined. This is akin to modeling items with numbers in mathematics. And just as mathematics has rules (e.g. lemmas) and can perform operations on its atoms, formal logic and has rules such as modus ponens: P → Q; P; ⛬ Q , and operations such as negation. Formal logic is (seemingly) correct regardless of the universe, but it does not suggest that the universe has a creator.
The notion of 2 items along with another 2 items will yield a total of 4 items is the truth. Mathematics is a way of modeling that truth. Human beings evolved the modeling language (mathematics), which is capable of modeling reality. The fact that we have a very cool modeling language does not mean that the reality we model could not exist without our modeling language.
So take that with my example of humor. If you recognize that mathematics cannot model everything then why would you hold that mathematics is necessary for the universe to come into existence?
The concept of 'appearing' as though mathematically designed is odd. Just because we can model something with mathematics (or formal logic) does not mean that this thing could not exist without mathematics.
Well before mathematics was known to human beings, the universe existed. So if you were to argue that the laws of physics (not the science of physics) were necessary for our universe to exist, I would easily agree. But you are trying to claim that the formal system we call mathematics had to exist for our universe to exist. That, again, is quite a leap with no justification.
Language involves more than agreeing on what to name things. Languages have a syntax which defines the rules for how words, phrases, sentences are constructed and a grammar which guides how we impart semantics using language.
If you want to simplify that down to mere 'convention' then we can do the same for mathematics. It is simply by convention that we have constructions such as 2 + 2 = 4. We could, by convention, express the same truth as {2,2}→{4}. Mathematics did not invent the concept in reality that 2 items combined with 2 other items can be perceived as a group of 4 items. It provides a language, convenient for the human mind, to represent this concept and to act upon the concept in a formal sense.
Keep in mind that mathematics has been evolving for centuries. Prior to Newton there was no Calculus. And Newton had absolutely no concept of set theory or information theory (just to name two of many).
The fact that mathematics can express what we know of reality (for the most part) does not mean that reality required mathematics to be invented before it could exist.
The universe, if created on principles, would be created using the laws of physics. The fact that we can model the laws of physics (thus far) with our formal system known as mathematics does not in any way mean mathematics preceded the 'creation' of our universe.
Nope. I'm completely aware of the difference between facts and how we express them.
No argument from me on this. In fact, I especially agree with "a formal system representing what already exists". In other words, math doesn't conform to nature, nature seems to conform to math.
Yes... and no. That 2+2=4 is indeed simple, and it does model reality with numbers, but that isn't the point. The point is that 2+2=4 is true regardless of reality. That simple fact renders the universe from incomprehensible to comprehensible. The question is, why? Why does math make the universe comprehensible? One obvious and completely logical answer is that it was created with math. Why you find this a "staggering leap of logic" when it practically screams it as logical.
How does this disprove the universe being created mathematically?
Okay? Who has argued otherwise?
I didn't. I hold that the reason math can describe the universe so well is because it was designed on mathematical principles. It is the most logical explanation, to my mind.
(sigh) Where did I say that our universe could not exist without mathematics? What I have said is that our universe appears to have been constructed upon mathematical principles. For the life of me, I can't understand why you think that is odd, unless you are saying so because you dislike the implications.
Completely and factually wrong. I am not saying the human understanding of math is necessary for the existence of our universe. I am saying that math, which is factual regardless of human understanding, is able to describe our universe and, therefore, suggests that it was created according to mathematical principles.
I simply don't have the energy to respond to this nonsense in this post.
That is the exact opposite of what I wrote.
Do you believe that mountains conform to cartography?
And true is the opposite of false regardless of reality. I agree with your tone that mathematics is impressive, but to portray mathematics as that which was created by a sentient entity just because it does a great job of modeling reality is wishful thinking rather than a rational conclusion.
Because it is a formal system for representing an abstraction of a very complex thing. And it is not the only formal system that helps us understand complexity. Language theory is also a formal system to help us understand complexity (of syntax, grammar, and semantics). Economics is a semi-formal system for helping us understand the complexity of a economic system in a global economy. Human beings have developed all sorts of systems for understanding complexity based on abstracting reality into a model with defined rules and operations.
It was intended to be instructional. You have the burden of proof here since you are claiming that mathematics predated reality.
I suggest the reason math can describe the universe so well is because the universe (albeit enormously complex) is regular ... it has many repeating patterns. The patterns we see are the laws of physics. And mathematics have evolved to the point where even something as complex as our model (abstraction) of the universe can be represented mathematically.
You are arguing that mathematics existed before our universe. If you are going to soften that and simply claim that the universe could exist without mathematics then this would be a good time to make that clear.
I did not even suggest that you made that claim.
Yes I know. That is what I have been rebutting.
The ability of mathematics to describe an abstraction of what we understand of the universe does not, in any way, suggest that principles of the formal system of mathematics were intentionally created prior to the universe coming into existence. The very best claim anyone could make is that the principles of physics were in place prior to the universe coming into existence. And that is mere conjecture.
Nonsense?
Okay, this is an inflection point where, like all debates, will start going south.
Given we have the technology, I suggest you debate ChatGPT or equivalent. Put forth your ideas and observe the "nonsense" that it is likely to produce. See if you can honestly rebut it.
A very good instructional exercise, I predict.
Let me ask you, my friend...what makes you believe?
How can you possibly suggest that cartography and math are the same sorts of things? Concerning what we are discussing, cartography deals with what is, while math deals with why it is that way.
And, as far as what you wrote being the opposite of what I did, no kidding! That is what makes this an argument. Go figure.
Except that I didn't portray mathematics as created by a sentient entity. I put forth the idea that because the universe can be so accurately described by mathematics that it is logical to think the universe was created by mathematical principles, implying a creator. That says nothing about why mathematical principles exist or where they come from.
You seriously need to stop with the language argument. Math is truth. Language is designed to transmit that truth and can either be true or false. Math says 2+2=4. Language will either confirm this or post an argument against it. If anyone were insane enough to argue against it, they'd still have to use math to justify it. In other words, language is about meaning, not truth.
Untrue. You made a claim to which I responded with a question. I will repost it for you.
This is a claim you posted in response to...
So, it is up to you to defend your statement, not mine
The question you are ignoring, however, is why? Why does mathematics describe our existence so well? One answer, logically, is that it was designed according to mathematical principles. That you refuse to recognize this simple conclusion says much about your objectivity.
Okay, fair point. If our universe is based on mathematics, which all evidence to date confirms, math would necessarily need to exist prior to its construction. I do not intend that the universe could exist as we experience it without it. Nor do I intend that any other universe would necessarily exist according to mathematical principles. Only that if the are not, they would be incomprehensible.
I disagree, and your disagreement with that is not sufficient for a rational argument against. The subject you consistently refuse to confront is that math suggests an intelligent designer for why math describes why we can understand the universe the way we do.
Oh, gosh! How to answer this. Why not ask something simple, like were to missing socks go? Answer. They become Tupperware lids that don't actually fit anything.
Okay, seriously though. I'm not sure how to give a simple answer. In fact, I don't think one exists. That is, at least, apart from the Bible. But whatever I say that comes from the Bible would most likely be meaningless to you without connecting it to non-Biblical explanations. So, let me proceed on that basis.
First, while the subject currently being discussed, that math implies God when considering the universe, is not the reason I believe in God. I think it supports my belief, but it isn't the source of my belief. If I had to pick just one thing for the basis of my belief, it would be morality. The question of morality converted me from someone who was culturally Christian, to one who was actually Christian, I hope.
So, morality. Is the source God or is it man? if man, take group A, which believes killing one's own daughter for perceived slights to honor as justified as opposed to group B, which believes the opposite. If morality is simply whatever the group decides it is, does that not rob "morality" of any objective meaning? And if morality is subjective, then what, really, does morality mean? Does it not devolve into whatever group holds power deciding what is moral and what isn't? If so, upon what basis could we condemn Nazis for the atrocities they committed? The Japanese, who were far, far more brutal than the Germans? Their actions could only be considered immoral because we won. If they had won, then who could argue that what they had done was immoral and upon what basis?
So, I guess that the reason I believe is that I do not believe man dictates what is moral. Man has so many different moral codes that, without God, without something external determining what moral is, morality doesn't exist. It is simply what any group decides it is. I cannot believe that. The Bible says not to repay evil with evil. I understand that. It isn't some rule that I'm supposed to mindlessly follow. I actually understand the reasoning behind it.
While this represents a fraction of why I believe, it is a part of it. As I said, this isn't a simple question. There are more reasons than this for belief. This is just the one I currently think is most relevant.
Lastly, thank you for calling me "friend". I appreciate it more than you know.
In addition, but no less important, I know me. I know how unworthy I am concerning forgiveness for the totality of my life and the individual things that make it up. I know I am not a nice person, regardless of the fact that most who know me would think I am. I believe in the God that I do because He sees me as I truly am and still wants to save me to the point of sending His own Son to take the penalty of my sin upon himself so that I can be with Him. Of all the gods history has put forth, none are like Him. Of all the gods we have put forth, none have moved Heaven and Earth to reconcile myself to Himself.
I cannot, in honesty. say that what makes me believe is purely scientific reasoning. Much of it is based on human intuition, such as my belief in morality. But I would submit that anyone who thinks they believe what they believe purely out of scientific reasoning is lying to themselves and others. They cannot empirically prove their position any more than I can.
In the end, you ask me why I believe. There is no single, simple answer. I struggle to say this much because there's a universe of concepts behind what I am saying. How do I communicate them? The best I can do is to tell you the answer lies in seeking God yourself. The God I serve promised that those who seek him will find Him. Pretty sure the reason behind the seeking matters, though. I'm fairly convinced that He doesn't give a fig about proving He exists. He is interested in having a relationship with you.
As usual, you refuse every analogy and every example. The point obviously is that a language that can express an abstraction of reality does not mean that its principles had to exist for that reality to exist. The principles of cartography evolved just as the principles of mathematics evolved. The principles of mathematics (in case you have some exotic meaning for this term) refers to things like axioms, atoms, theorems, representation, rigor, etc.
No, Drakk, you paraphrased me and in the paraphrase you wrote the exact opposite of what I wrote. When one starts with "in other words ..." that is a paraphrase.
Okay now this is getting absurd. You say that a universe created by mathematical principles (if true) implies a creator but deny that this would mean that the creator created the mathematical principles it used??
Mathematics is a formal system, and a crucial part of this system is the mathematical language. Mathematics is a tool, it is a framework for rigorously deriving truth based on conditions. It is not truth itself.
Mathematics models the fact that a set of two items combined with another set of two items yields a set of four items. It represents an aspect of reality in terms that are part of the formal system and expresses relationships via its language.
Wrong, you asked " How does this disprove the universe being created mathematically? ". The question is confused at best since I was giving an example for instruction as to why the existence of an expressive modeling language is not extraordinary and certainly does not mean it preexisted the universe.
You are the one who is claiming that the principles of mathematics preexisted the universe so you have the burden of proof. So far, you have just restated your claim in different ways and have also tried to elevate mathematics as truth itself (which is silly).
I answered this question right of the bat and have continued to answer it. The answer is that mathematics has evolved over centuries. And also, it is not mathematics that describes our existence, it really is physics, and physics expresses its concepts and relationships using the language of mathematics.
This is getting boring and repetitious.
Let's bring ChatGPT into this since you posed a single question:
Uh, yup, a fine answer.
It is a term that refers to the mores and values of a culture. It is necessarily subjective because it is, in practice, defined/refined over time by each culture.
If there were an objective morality it would necessarily come from a superior entity; likely a creator. But that does not mean there is such an entity because we have not established that objective morality exists.
The concept of objective morality exists. We can all understand the concept (even if we do not know what the mores and values would be). And the concept of a creator entity exists. But the existence of the concept does not mean there really is an objective morality or a god.
But in reality, the only morality we ever see is subjective, culturally derived mores and values.
Now, let's give this to ChatGPT:
Mathematics is actually a system of logic rather than just numbers. For example, 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8 Transforming the decimal numbers to integers by rounding would make the relationship 2 + 2 = 5. But that would be a logically incoherent result. (Yes, such mistakes do happen in the real world.) Logic must be applied to the mathematical operation before a logical result can be obtained.
The simple operation of 2 + 2 = 4 is actually more complex than it appears.
Again, mathematics is a system of logic. In its pure sense, the numbers only represent placeholders or symbols for logical operations and processes.
So, the question becomes whether logic is an emergent property of the universe or is the universe an emergent property of logic? That's one of the fundamental questions raised by the "God creator" theory. Whether logic was discovered or invented cannot be resolved with scientific observation of the material universe. Only logic, itself, and abstract reasoning can explore the issue of which came first: logic or material existence.
Yes, it is. I guess I'll just put you down as a Formalist when it comes to the philosophy of mathematics and just move on.
Try to resist labeling people. That implicitly is a stereotype and causes one to infer wrong attributes about the person.
I recommend you seriously discuss your perception of mathematics with ChatGPT (or, really, any other AI tool).
Been doing that the whole discussion.
Really? ChatGPT told you that mathematics is NOT a language? That it is NOT a man-made formal system that has evolved over time to model and operate on an abstraction of something we perceive??
Per ChatGPT:
What ChatGPT told me.
ChatGPT described the two positions. It wrote an essay from a third-party perspective summarizing the differences between the 'formalist' and 'realist' perspectives.
It did not affirm that your view is correct. It offered an academic comparison of viewpoints.
In contrast, note the entirely objective question I asked ChatGPT (I literally asked it the question that you asked). Note the response it gave:
Per ChatGPT:
In particular, note that it offered that mathematics is indeed a language (and a formal system) that has evolved commensurate with our knowledge.
Correct.
Agreed. And the point behind what I've been saying. As you later say, "Whether logic was discovered or invented cannot be resolved with scientific observation of the material universe," science isn't going to solve this. Nor can it be considered proof of a creator. However, it is evidence for a creator.
When I asked ChatGPT "Is why math works to describe our universe a matter of debate," it returned the following.
To my mind, one obvious answer to why math works so well is because our universe was designed with math. Einstein thought the most amazing thing was that math actually could be used to examine the universe but thought math existed only in the mind. Apparently, he thought the idea that math existing outside the mind was too metaphysical for him. On the other end of the spectrum, one guy, by the name of Tegmark, thinks that the universe wasn't just created using math, it actually is math.
Point is, one answer to why math works so well is because our universe was designed with math. It's simple and obvious.
Even more simple and obvious is that mathematics evolved commensurate with our understanding of reality.
Keep in mind that what we model with mathematics is itself just an abstraction of reality (i.e. our understanding of reality is itself merely an abstraction). We have evolved mathematics to handle situations as our abstractions mature. We likely will continue to do so.
Mathematics is a very cool tool. And we can see the evolution of this tool in history. There is no mystery here.
I would suggest modifying that statement to the universe was designed with logic. The logic of mathematics differs from the language of mathematics. The numerals are merely symbols that can be combined into a language that describes logical processes and concepts.
Consider that the Roman numbering system created a symbol for '10' rather than a symbol for zero. The logic of addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication work just as well with the Roman system of notation. But the Roman system of notation (I,V,X,L,C,D,M) was the language of mathematics. The practical application of mathematics utilized the abacus which operated with a positional method of counting similar to our modern method. The lack of zero in Roman notation did not inhibit Roman technical ability. The logic of the abacus overcame the weaknesses of the Roman system of notation.
The point being that the logic of mathematics takes precedent. But the logic of mathematics, alone, is insufficient to explain all aspects of the universe and reality. Logic extends beyond more domains than mathematics. Logic is a prerequisite for understanding and explaining a well ordered universe.
Didn't mathematics emerge from logic? Mathematics works so well because of the underlying logic. The logically coherent universe leads to the philosophic question of whether logic was discovered (as an intrinsic property of reality) or was invented (to explain reality).
Why not both? While logic and math are not the same thing, they are closely linked. Each is empowered by the other. Logic allows us to develop the language of math while math reinforces or proves the logic. It would seem that, to develop math, one must first begin from logic, though. And, certainly, the universe is logical, suggesting it was made according to logical principles, but I am not sure that is enough to explain it. It would seem more likely that the logical application of mathematics would be a more complete statement, but I'll give it more thought.
That's correct, but that's merely language. That is, it is simply consensus about how mathematical principles are expressed from one mind to the next in a coherent fashion. Whatever system one uses, those don't actually change the math. Just how it gets done. 2+2=4 cannot be changed, no matter how one expresses it through language or symbolism. If that is correct, then that is indeed a logical conclusion, but it isn't true because it's logical. It just is.
I would say logic precedes mathematics. I say this because logic alone can't model the universe. Math does. Yet we can't utilize math without logic. One can make a logical argument that is factually wrong, for instance.
And totally onboard with the logic of mathematics being insufficient to explain all aspects of reality. But concerning modeling or understanding the natural universe? It seems to me that logic and math are two sides of the same coin. Not the same but both are necessary in that realm.
To sum up, I do believe logic was used to create the universe, but it is insufficient by itself to account or describe it. But, like I said, this needs more thought. What I have written are my initial reactions.
That neither answers the question of whether mathematics is a necessary being or why, if mathematics "is itself just an abstraction of reality" why it does such a miraculous job of describing the universe or whether we invent math or discover it. It doesn't answer any of that. Rather, it seems to be an assumption that mathematics is no more than a human invention that happens to, somehow, do an astounding job of describing things.
Not sure you will ever get a satisfactory answer then because my explanation is straightforward. We perceive the universe in terms of patterns. That is an abstraction of reality since the universe is more complex than what we currently perceive. You seem to think it is miraculous that we (human beings) have evolved mathematics to the point where it can model and operating on a model of an abstraction.
Why you find that to be so hard to believe is beyond me. How you are able to comfortably ignore the historical evolution of mathematics is also a mystery.
Bottom line, human beings have evolved languages (natural, formal (e.g. Python), mathematical, technical (e.g. TCP/IP), ...) which are capable of describing enormous complexity. Why you find it so hard to believe (actually recognize is more appropriate) that mathematics is a human invention that is capable of modeling our (human) abstraction of reality is quite an enigma.
Why you appear to be unable to understand what I'm even talking about is beyond me.
Because how we developed math is not the same subject as whether the universe is comprehensible because it was created using math or that a system that only exists in our minds just happens to work astonishingly well for modeling the universe. And this is not me just not getting it, TiG.
So, my argument doesn't come from a lack of understanding. Even Einstein saw the problem.
No, because I think the universe was made using math and logic so it makes sense that we can develop math to explain it. Einstein, however, apparently thought it was miraculous in a philosophical sense. I think he couldn't make the leap because he was a naturalist, not liking the idea of the supernatural or the metaphysical.
If you actually read what I write, it wouldn't be an enigma. I have repeatedly stated that I don't think mathematics is a human "invention". The system with which we express mathematics is our invention, but mathematics is something we discover, not invent. Aside from the fact that if we assume the universe was created using mathematics and logic that it explains why we can do math, there are other examples that argue for math being a discovery.
Non-Euclidian geometry was developed early in the 1800's, purely as a mathematical exercise in order to see if Euclid's fifth postulate would hold up. At the time, it had no practical purpose (at the time) and wasn't trying to model anything. Einstein ended up using the math in his theory of relativity in 1915 to describe spacetime curvature, and from that, many other essential fields.
There are many examples of math like this; math that seemed to simply be curiosities or math done simply for math's sake that, later, turned out to be what was needed to model observable phenomenon. In other words, they discovered "pointless" math that others down the road discovered was already reflected in the universe. I think that's the sort of thing that so amazed Einstein.
Don't be insulting.
If human beings developed mathematics then clearly the universe was not "created using math". (And if human beings did not develop mathematics then you are, in effect, saying God invented mathematics.)
Mathematics can describe the universe as we perceive it (in the abstract) because we have evolved mathematics accordingly.
The universe is regular. That means it has repeating patterns. We understand many of these patterns and have captured them formally (using mathematics) with science (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.).
And there is no a priori reason why the universe is not chaotic. Understanding how reality could be regular is not difficult. All one needs is an understanding of how a basic idea, when repeated, can result in emergent complexity.
Don't be insulting.
So you find it odd that I rebut this by noting that mathematics is indeed a human invention?
You conflate mathematics with physics. I have explained this to you in detail. What you are calling mathematics is simply the regular patterns of reality. And it is no surprise that we have been able to formally represent our understanding of reality (especially given our understanding is itself an abstraction).
Mathematics evolved. You think that merely because mathematicians expanded mathematics prior to finding a practical use for it means that our universe was "created using math"?
Are you aware of string theory? Plenty of 'pointless' mathematics evolved in support of string theory (e.g. D-branes & K-theory) since none of it can be applied to reality (yet). Mathematics does not strictly evolve based on the need to model reality. Theoretical mathematics has been going on for ages. Theoretical mathematics is discovering properties within the mathematical system. It is finding patterns in mathematics; it is creating higher order functions in mathematics.
The universe seems to have regularity. It seems to be based on patterns. We understand many of these patterns (as an abstraction). Mathematics is powerful enough to express these abstractions.
At this point I'm just done. You know I did not mean "developed mathematics" the way you do. You know I meant the development of the formal language that describes mathematical principles we discover, not invent. I know you know this because I said as much in the post you are responding to.
What you call "mathematical principles" are the patterns that we (human beings) recognize in our abstract understanding of reality. Labeling these "mathematical principles" is wrong. They are, if anything, the laws of physics.
The universe is regular (at least it seems that way). That does not mean that it was created with "mathematical principles". It simply means it is regular (for whatever reason).
And mathematics, in its current level of evolution, is capable of modeling our abstract understanding of reality.
Reminder.
per ChatGPT:
In particular, note that it offered that mathematics is indeed a language (and a formal system) that has evolved commensurate with our knowledge.
One douchebag.
Zero douchebags.
I guess god doesn’t exist then? That was easy.
That's not tangible proof that zero exists.
BTW, this is the largest manmade hole above ground.
Well, man invented and defined zero. So yes zero is like god, entirely invented and defined by man.
No.
Was God really a form of AI ?
The A part, not the I part.