Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

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?

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

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?

It shows that outside of thought, the material world we experience likely doesn't exist which is similar to your belief on the existence of math. That is, for you math requires a mind (I agree), and you take a very anthropomorphic-mind view to believe it didn't exist prior to humans (I disagree). Similarly, we know particles are influenced by an intelligence observing; we might take a very anthropomorphic-mind view to believe such too doesn't exist without human observation (which experiements support).

• Do We See Reality As It Is? - https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffma ... y_as_it_is
  Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman is trying to answer a big question: Do we experience the world as it really is ... or as we need it to be? In this ever so slightly mind-blowing talk, he ponders how our minds construct reality for us.

Kurieuo wrote:You can choose to believe the "material" world is real (i.e., Material Realism), and not a human construction, but the science is against you on this Kenny.

Kurieuo wrote:Whether we look to quantum physics, evolutionary science or cognitive science -- they all do not support Material Realism. So, it is in a way, you have a kind of blind faith -- your choosing to believe your physical senses provide you with an objective perception of reality.

Don't respond to me here though, I'd much rather you become acquainted with modern discussions today. Like this very interesting TED talk given by Donald Hoffman.

• Do We See Reality As It Is? - https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffma ... y_as_it_is
  Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman is trying to answer a big question: Do we experience the world as it really is ... or as we need it to be? In this ever so slightly mind-blowing talk, he ponders how our minds construct reality for us.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You can choose to believe the "material" world is real (i.e., Material Realism), and not a human construction, but the science is against you on this Kenny.

Kurieuo wrote:Whether we look to quantum physics, evolutionary science or cognitive science -- they all do not support Material Realism. So, it is in a way, you have a kind of blind faith -- your choosing to believe your physical senses provide you with an objective perception of reality.

Don't respond to me here though, I'd much rather you become acquainted with modern discussions today. Like this very interesting TED talk given by Donald Hoffman.

• Do We See Reality As It Is? - https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffma ... y_as_it_is
  Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman is trying to answer a big question: Do we experience the world as it really is ... or as we need it to be? In this ever so slightly mind-blowing talk, he ponders how our minds construct reality for us.

A Cognitive scientist? Really??? How about providing something from a science who actually studies the material world; rather than how people think. And if the material world were just a figment of imaginations, how do you explain the human ability to constantly learn new information about the material world?

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:I thought the bible agreed that the material world is real.

Kurieuo wrote:

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.

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You can choose to believe the "material" world is real (i.e., Material Realism), and not a human construction, but the science is against you on this Kenny.

Kurieuo wrote:Whether we look to quantum physics, evolutionary science or cognitive science -- they all do not support Material Realism. So, it is in a way, you have a kind of blind faith -- your choosing to believe your physical senses provide you with an objective perception of reality.

Don't respond to me here though, I'd much rather you become acquainted with modern discussions today. Like this very interesting TED talk given by Donald Hoffman.

• Do We See Reality As It Is? - https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffma ... y_as_it_is
  Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman is trying to answer a big question: Do we experience the world as it really is ... or as we need it to be? In this ever so slightly mind-blowing talk, he ponders how our minds construct reality for us.

A Cognitive scientist? Really??? How about providing something from a science who actually studies the material world; rather than how people think. And if the material world were just a figment of imaginations, how do you explain the human ability to constantly learn new information about the material world?

Your avoidance of all presented is obvious to me Kenny. Surely you must need to pull your head out of the sand to take a breath at some point.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You can choose to believe the "material" world is real (i.e., Material Realism), and not a human construction, but the science is against you on this Kenny.

Kurieuo wrote:Whether we look to quantum physics, evolutionary science or cognitive science -- they all do not support Material Realism. So, it is in a way, you have a kind of blind faith -- your choosing to believe your physical senses provide you with an objective perception of reality.

Don't respond to me here though, I'd much rather you become acquainted with modern discussions today. Like this very interesting TED talk given by Donald Hoffman.

• Do We See Reality As It Is? - https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffma ... y_as_it_is
  Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman is trying to answer a big question: Do we experience the world as it really is ... or as we need it to be? In this ever so slightly mind-blowing talk, he ponders how our minds construct reality for us.

A Cognitive scientist? Really??? How about providing something from a science who actually studies the material world; rather than how people think. And if the material world were just a figment of imaginations, how do you explain the human ability to constantly learn new information about the material world?

Your avoidance of all presented is obvious to me Kenny. Surely you must need to pull your head out of the sand to take a breath at some point.

Avoidance??? Bro! I don't agree with this "Cognitive scientist" and apparently neither do you; so I have no interest in listening to a half hour video of his absurd ideas unless I were able to refute his claims, with him defending them. Tell you what; how a'bout if you listen to his video, present his points to me then I will discuss his beliefs with you defending them. Fair enough?

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You can choose to believe the "material" world is real (i.e., Material Realism), and not a human construction, but the science is against you on this Kenny.

Kurieuo wrote:Whether we look to quantum physics, evolutionary science or cognitive science -- they all do not support Material Realism. So, it is in a way, you have a kind of blind faith -- your choosing to believe your physical senses provide you with an objective perception of reality.

Don't respond to me here though, I'd much rather you become acquainted with modern discussions today. Like this very interesting TED talk given by Donald Hoffman.

• Do We See Reality As It Is? - https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffma ... y_as_it_is
  Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman is trying to answer a big question: Do we experience the world as it really is ... or as we need it to be? In this ever so slightly mind-blowing talk, he ponders how our minds construct reality for us.

A Cognitive scientist? Really??? How about providing something from a science who actually studies the material world; rather than how people think. And if the material world were just a figment of imaginations, how do you explain the human ability to constantly learn new information about the material world?

Your avoidance of all presented is obvious to me Kenny. Surely you must need to pull your head out of the sand to take a breath at some point.

Avoidance??? Bro! I don't agree with this "Cognitive scientist" and apparently neither do you; so I have no interest in listening to a half hour video of his absurd ideas unless I were able to refute his claims, with him defending them. Tell you what; how a'bout if you listen to his video, present his points to me then I will discuss his beliefs with you defending them. Fair enough?

Yes, avoidance. You can't just say I don't like it and so label something absurd. He makes good points. If I disagree then I must deal with it. He builds a lot upon evolutionary science, which as you know, I wouldn't give much credit -- and yet, within that paradigm he has very good arguments (even outside of).

Kurieuo wrote:JH, can you explain why would "incorporeal" and "spiritual" would be considered immaterial?

Quite simply, if something isn't "material" than it is "immaterial". We could say math is non-physical, yet then, some might like to say math is part of the physical laws. Yet, I made an argument earlier, if one is a physicalist, and math forms part of that picture, then by necessity math must have exists without us humans thinking it.

Kurieuo wrote:JH, can you explain why would "incorporeal" and "spiritual" would be considered immaterial?

Quite simply, if something isn't "material" than it is "immaterial". We could say math is non-physical, yet then, some might like to say math is part of the physical laws. Yet, I made an argument earlier, if one is a physicalist, and math forms part of that picture, then by necessity math must have exists without us humans thinking it.

...Yet, I made an argument earlier, if one is a physicalist, and math forms part of that picture, then by necessity math must have exists without us humans thinking it.

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:JH, can you explain why would "incorporeal" and "spiritual" would be considered immaterial?

Quite simply, if something isn't "material" than it is "immaterial". We could say math is non-physical, yet then, some might like to say math is part of the physical laws. Yet, I made an argument earlier, if one is a physicalist, and math forms part of that picture, then by necessity math must have exists without us humans thinking it.

Because 'incorporeal' and 'math' aren't on the same level to share them under common denominator.
They are totally different types of immateriality.