Evidence for God from Science

Using the system of math; of course it would! As I said before, once the system is invented, it works whether an intelligent mind is around to use it or not.
Now that I've answered your question, can you answer mine?

PaulSacramento wrote:So math was invented?

Yes I believe the system of math was invented. If it were discovered as you and others claim, the next obvious question becomes “where was it discovered”, and where does it exist; questions you and others who hold this position seem unable to answer.

PaulSacramento wrote: We invented that 2+2=4 ?

2+2 is an example of an equation solved by the system of math. Before the system was developed 2+2 was not a concept; the plus sign didn’t exist.

PaulSacramento wrote: What was 2+2 before we invented math ??

2+2 currently is based on the number 10. Suppose it was based on another number? When humans invented the system, we based it on the number 10 because we have 10 fingers.

PaulSacramento wrote: Did we invent gravity equation too by the way?

No.

PaulSacramento wrote: Dude, you don't seem to understand that until you grasp your error, my response to your question is no relevant.

I understand the position you hold, I just don’t agree with it. And the fact that you claim something exist yet can’t explain WHERE it exists, only strengthens my doubt in your claim

So math was invented?

So, what was 2 x 2 before math was invented?

By the way, if math was invented then the gravity equation was invented to, for obvious reasons ( it's math).

Yes I believe the system of math was invented. If it were discovered as you and others claim, the next obvious question becomes “where was it discovered”, and where does it exist; questions you and others who hold this position seem unable to answer.

If you don't agree with our position, how on earth will you be able to understand what lays beyond it ??

You sound like the evolution denier that disagrees with the evidence then says there is no evidence because he disagrees with it.

How appropriate, LOL:

Both sides of the argument:

https://ed.ted.com/lessons/is-math-disc ... f-dekofsky

https://ed.ted.com/lessons/is-math-disc ... f-dekofsky

PaulSacramento wrote:

No. That's why I wrote earlier we actually might mean the same, but interprete eachothers explanations differently. Intellectually unwillingly or subconciously willingly.

Take for example language. Before humans developed their individual language those actual languages didn't exist in their 'physical' state. The conceptual possibilities (for now I can't think of a more better description) of those languages however was (is) already there.
If you, in 10 seconds from reading this post, 'invent' an as yet non-existing word, that word will become 'physical' the moment you actually think of it. Before that the existence of that word existed only in its conceptual possibility form.

To describe words and math and the like as immaterial is in my opinion wrong. Ghosts, spirit, soul, God, they are immaterial, and in their sense 'physically real'. Tangible, even in their immaterial form.

Language is something to be invented, math ie: the quantitative measure of something, isn't.
Unit of measure sure, but quantitative measure is what it is and will always be what it always is.
Something for a physical property or formula.
We didn't invent of create the equation for gravity, it was discovered.
The distinction is important.

I think you don't like the term immaterial because it has spiritual and metaphysical connotations.
Fine, choose a synonym:
intangible, incorporeal, bodiless, disembodied, impalpable, ethereal, insubstantial.

I do not like the term immaterial because math isn't immaterial.

intangible, incorporeal, bodiless, disembodied, impalpable, ethereal, insubstantial.

All refer to a (meta)physical presence of some kind.

But math is just a fact.

You make it sound as if math can be grabbed from somewhere, like picking it out of some immaterial pool of 'mathness'. You probably don't mean that, but to me it sounds so.

PaulSacramento wrote:So math was invented?

Yes I believe it was

PaulSacramento wrote: So, what was 2 x 2 before math was invented?

2X2 is a mathematical question that requires an answer. How can a mathematical question exist before math was invented? That’s like asking what did cars look like before cars were invented.

PaulSacramento wrote: By the way, if math was invented then the gravity equation was invented to, for obvious reasons ( it's math).

Gravitation equation is the equation you get when you apply the system of math to gravity. IOW the gravitation equation is not something invented, it’s the answer to a question concerning gravity

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:

Yes I believe the system of math was invented. If it were discovered as you and others claim, the next obvious question becomes “where was it discovered”, and where does it exist; questions you and others who hold this position seem unable to answer.

If you don't agree with our position, how on earth will you be able to understand what lays beyond it ??

You sound like the evolution denier that disagrees with the evidence then says there is no evidence because he disagrees with it.

I explained why I don't agree with your answer, and I've asked questions concerning your position that you seem unable to answer. I have yet to see an Evolution deniers do that.

Ken

Kenny, a question for you... since you do not believe math exists without humans.

• Do you believe that objects we see are true in and of themselves, or
• Are physical objects we see merely useful representations we construct of reality?

Second to that, do you know which one science tends to support today?

Kurieuo wrote:Kenny, a question for you... since you do not believe math exists without humans.

• Do you believe that objects we see are true in and of themselves, or
• Are physical objects we see merely useful representations we construct of reality?

Second to that, do you know which one science tends to support today?

I believe what we see are true in and of themselves. If a scientist claimed everything is merely useful representations we construct of reality, he would have to present an awful good explanation for why he holds this view before I accept it because I wouldn't just take him at face value because he is a scientist. Which do you believe?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Kenny, a question for you... since you do not believe math exists without humans.

• Do you believe that objects we see are true in and of themselves, or
• Are physical objects we see merely useful representations we construct of reality?

Second to that, do you know which one science tends to support today?

I believe what we see are true in and of themselves. If a scientist claimed everything is merely useful representations we construct of reality, he would have to present an awful good explanation for why he holds this view before I accept it because I wouldn't just take him at face value because he is a scientist. Which do you believe?

I believe there is more than meets the eye.

For example, the user interface of an operating system such as Windows, MacOS or a smartphone device. The icons on the screen, folders, files, applications and the like, when broken down are bits (1s and 0s), and then even ultimately based upon voltages. Yet, so we can easily and meaningfully perform certain tasks, whether such is sending an email or word processing, everything is represented to us in a certain usable way as intended by the developers of the operating system and/or software. We don't have to go adjusting voltages to produce 1s and 0s, if we did, we'd never get tasks done.

What I believe, and what physics seems to support, is that the universe contains a whole lot of information. Whether this is in the form of energy, waves, or something deepers, we interpret this information in meaningful ways, ways that make sense to us, ways that allow us to function and survive. For example, we experience colour, yet colours are ultimately different "colourless" wavelengths. It is our human "operating system" if you will, which interprets such in a meaningful manner to ourselves as colour. Yet, colour nowhere physically exists out there in reality apart from us.

If we take this further, quantum theory and scientific experiments support that particles behave as such when observed. For example, with the old the double-slit experiment (or a good alternative video here) - when electrons are left unobserved a wave pattern is the result, however when observed we see the behaviour of particles as the end result. This is highly suggestive that an objective material reality just isn't real in and of itself, but is rather dependant upon some sort of observation and consciousness as such. With other interesting results had in quantum physics and also adding in cognitive science, many believe that we experience and interpret the world around us with useful representative constructs that are beneficial to us living.

Justhuman wrote:To describe words and math and the like as immaterial is in my opinion wrong. Ghosts, spirit, soul, God, they are immaterial, and in their sense 'physically real'. Tangible, even in their immaterial form.
....
I do not like the term immaterial because math isn't immaterial.

Of course math is immaterial, for math is abstract. Therefore, given this, something abstract is by definition non-physicial, immaterial, etc.

Just because you subjectively associate the spiritual world with "immaterial", and so don't like the term being used to describe non-material realities, such just means you ought to reformulate what you understand as being immaterial.

It is more proper you redefine your understanding, rather than everyone else re-define their understanding to your own because you associate the immaterial with God, ghosts and spirits which you find distasteful.

PaulSacramento wrote:How appropriate, LOL:

Both sides of the argument:

https://ed.ted.com/lessons/is-math-disc ... f-dekofsky

https://ed.ted.com/lessons/is-math-disc ... f-dekofsky

I quoted this because it needs to be viewed so that people realize this isn't a new debate ( is anything ever new?).
The mental gymnastics that some people go through to deny the obvious is amazing actually.

Define material:
1. the substance or substances of which a thing is made or composed: Stone is a durable material. ... anything that serves as crude or raw matter to be used or developed: Wood pulp is the raw material from which paper is made.

Define immaterial:
Definition of immaterial. 1 : not consisting of matter : incorporeal

Which does math fall under?

Sheesh.

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:To describe words and math and the like as immaterial is in my opinion wrong. Ghosts, spirit, soul, God, they are immaterial, and in their sense 'physically real'. Tangible, even in their immaterial form.
....
I do not like the term immaterial because math isn't immaterial.

Of course math is immaterial, for math is abstract. Therefore, given this, something abstract is by definition non-physicial, immaterial, etc.

Just because you subjectively associate the spiritual world with "immaterial", and so don't like the term being used to describe non-material realities, such just means you ought to reformulate what you understand as being immaterial.

It is more proper you redefine your understanding, rather than everyone else re-define their understanding to your own because you associate the immaterial with God, ghosts and spirits which you find distasteful.

I do have to agree to a lot you write Kurieuo, but not in this.
Immaterial refers to something not material: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/immaterial
Math consists of formulas and equations. It is nothing in itself and doesn't do anything of itself. As such, it is the theory of math that can be implemented (by intelligent beings) to describe, explain and shape the world around.

Furthermore I do not distaste God or any of the immateriality. I am 'indifferent' in this.

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Kenny, a question for you... since you do not believe math exists without humans.

• Do you believe that objects we see are true in and of themselves, or
• Are physical objects we see merely useful representations we construct of reality?

Second to that, do you know which one science tends to support today?

I believe what we see are true in and of themselves. If a scientist claimed everything is merely useful representations we construct of reality, he would have to present an awful good explanation for why he holds this view before I accept it because I wouldn't just take him at face value because he is a scientist. Which do you believe?

I believe there is more than meets the eye.

For example, the user interface of an operating system such as Windows, MacOS or a smartphone device. The icons on the screen, folders, files, applications and the like, when broken down are bits (1s and 0s), and then even ultimately based upon voltages. Yet, so we can easily and meaningfully perform certain tasks, whether such is sending an email or word processing, everything is represented to us in a certain usable way as intended by the developers of the operating system and/or software. We don't have to go adjusting voltages to produce 1s and 0s, if we did, we'd never get tasks done.

What I believe, and what physics seems to support, is that the universe contains a whole lot of information. Whether this is in the form of energy, waves, or something deepers, we interpret this information in meaningful ways, ways that make sense to us, ways that allow us to function and survive. For example, we experience colour, yet colours are ultimately different "colourless" wavelengths. It is our human "operating system" if you will, which interprets such in a meaningful manner to ourselves as colour. Yet, colour nowhere physically exists out there in reality apart from us.

If we take this further, quantum theory and scientific experiments support that particles behave as such when observed. For example, with the old the double-slit experiment (or a good alternative video here) - when electrons are left unobserved a wave pattern is the result, however when observed we see the behaviour of particles as the end result. This is highly suggestive that an objective material reality just isn't real in and of itself, but is rather dependant upon some sort of observation and consciousness as such. With other interesting results had in quantum physics and also adding in cognitive science, many believe that we experience and interpret the world around us with useful representative constructs that are beneficial to us living.

So how does this explain math having an actual existence outside of human though?

Ken

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:To describe words and math and the like as immaterial is in my opinion wrong. Ghosts, spirit, soul, God, they are immaterial, and in their sense 'physically real'. Tangible, even in their immaterial form.
....
I do not like the term immaterial because math isn't immaterial.

Of course math is immaterial, for math is abstract. Therefore, given this, something abstract is by definition non-physicial, immaterial, etc.

Just because you subjectively associate the spiritual world with "immaterial", and so don't like the term being used to describe non-material realities, such just means you ought to reformulate what you understand as being immaterial.

It is more proper you redefine your understanding, rather than everyone else re-define their understanding to your own because you associate the immaterial with God, ghosts and spirits which you find distasteful.

I do have to agree to a lot you write Kurieuo, but not in this.
Immaterial refers to something not material: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/immaterial
Math consists of formulas and equations. It is nothing in itself and doesn't do anything of itself. As such, it is the theory of math that can be implemented (by intelligent beings) to describe, explain and shape the world around.

Furthermore I do not distaste God or any of the immateriality. I am 'indifferent' in this.

Ok, but "immaterial" doesn't mean spirit, ghost, etc. In fact, many theists conceive of spirits as material bodies, conceive of God (wrongly) has being of a divine material. By such, I am using material to mean some tangible substance of sorts. You have bodies of physical material and than perhaps the oximoron of a immaterial "material" body.

The definition of "immaterial" at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/immaterial supports math being immaterial. Math might be applied to the material world, but it is abstract and something that can be used without (provided a mind exists to apprehend it). I'm not sure I understand how you see math as material, or why you don't see it as immaterial. You'll have to explain further.