Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

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.

I pointed out earlier that you attach "immaterial" with "incorporeal" and "spirits" however. Such is understandable, since it can be used for such. Yet, as I also said, it simply means not material. Technically speaking, "spirits" aren't considered "material" and therefore are classified as "immaterial." Similarly, "math" is also something not material, you can't find it as an object here and there, rather you must abstract it -- abstract things are therefore also "immaterial". Therefore, math by all qualifications is immaterial.

I don't mean this to sound condescening, though it'll now sound that way if it wasn't going to. But, you seem to be confused somewhere and drawing false inferences on par with: All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, all men are Socrates which is an invalid inference. There correct categorical syllogism would be: All men are mortal. Socrates a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal. But, I'm sure I don't have to point all this out, it's just predicate logic 101.

So then, we turn to "immaterial" to see what you are trying to have everyone agree with you on (or which you feel some like myself are trying to twist or rig the language used). Just because: All spirits are immaterial, if someone (PaulS, myself, others) claim "Math" is immaterial, we're by no means saying therefore all spirits are math, or math is on par with spirits.

There is really no valid reason I can see why you would resist using categorising math as "immaterial", except that you have come to closely associate the term (wrongly) with ONLY the incorporeal or spirits. And so, in your distaste for the spiritual realm, God, etc (which you claim you don't have), you resist math which you see as more clearly real, being placed into a same category you associate with realm of fantasy.

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".

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.

...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.

Yes, ok, but math doesn't 'exist', it just is.

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

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.

I pointed out earlier that you attach "immaterial" with "incorporeal" and "spirits" however. Such is understandable, since it can be used for such. Yet, as I also said, it simply means not material. Technically speaking, "spirits" aren't considered "material" and therefore are classified as "immaterial." Similarly, "math" is also something not material, you can't find it as an object here and there, rather you must abstract it -- abstract things are therefore also "immaterial". Therefore, math by all qualifications is immaterial.

I don't mean this to sound condescening, though it'll now sound that way if it wasn't going to. But, you seem to be confused somewhere and drawing false inferences on par with: All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, all men are Socrates which is an invalid inference. There correct categorical syllogism would be: All men are mortal. Socrates a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal. But, I'm sure I don't have to point all this out, it's just predicate logic 101.

So then, we turn to "immaterial" to see what you are trying to have everyone agree with you on (or which you feel some like myself are trying to twist or rig the language used). Just because: All spirits are immaterial, if someone (PaulS, myself, others) claim "Math" is immaterial, we're by no means saying therefore all spirits are math, or math is on par with spirits.

There is really no valid reason I can see why you would resist using categorising math as "immaterial", except that you have come to closely associate the term (wrongly) with ONLY the incorporeal or spirits. And so, in your distaste for the spiritual realm, God, etc (which you claim you don't have), you resist math which you see as more clearly real, being placed into a same category you associate with realm of fantasy.

I can see (and understand) your reasoning, but I keep on not agreeing.
It's like stating that midgets and whales are the same because they are both life.

If one is religious, that doesn't mean everyone has the same type or believe in religion. Take the amount of different believes on this platform. "Theistic evolution", "Young Earth creationist", "Gap Theory", etc...
Some will be insulted when called the wrong type of believe.

If 'immaterial' is used there should be a further distinction, as in "physical immaterial" (incorporeal) and "virtual immaterial" (math).

Again, I'm NOT distasting God or anything incorporeal. Please refrain from making that kind of conlusions. It's unnecessary.

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

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.

I pointed out earlier that you attach "immaterial" with "incorporeal" and "spirits" however. Such is understandable, since it can be used for such. Yet, as I also said, it simply means not material. Technically speaking, "spirits" aren't considered "material" and therefore are classified as "immaterial." Similarly, "math" is also something not material, you can't find it as an object here and there, rather you must abstract it -- abstract things are therefore also "immaterial". Therefore, math by all qualifications is immaterial.

I don't mean this to sound condescening, though it'll now sound that way if it wasn't going to. But, you seem to be confused somewhere and drawing false inferences on par with: All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, all men are Socrates which is an invalid inference. There correct categorical syllogism would be: All men are mortal. Socrates a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal. But, I'm sure I don't have to point all this out, it's just predicate logic 101.

So then, we turn to "immaterial" to see what you are trying to have everyone agree with you on (or which you feel some like myself are trying to twist or rig the language used). Just because: All spirits are immaterial, if someone (PaulS, myself, others) claim "Math" is immaterial, we're by no means saying therefore all spirits are math, or math is on par with spirits.

There is really no valid reason I can see why you would resist using categorising math as "immaterial", except that you have come to closely associate the term (wrongly) with ONLY the incorporeal or spirits. And so, in your distaste for the spiritual realm, God, etc (which you claim you don't have), you resist math which you see as more clearly real, being placed into a same category you associate with realm of fantasy.

I can see (and understand) your reasoning, but I keep on not agreeing.
It's like stating that midgets and whales are the same because they are both life.

If one is religious, that doesn't mean everyone has the same type or believe in religion. Take the amount of different believes on this platform. "Theistic evolution", "Young Earth creationist", "Gap Theory", etc...
Some will be insulted when called the wrong type of believe.

If 'immaterial' is used there should be a further distinction, as in "physical immaterial" (incorporeal) and "virtual immaterial" (math).

Again, I'm NOT distasting God or anything incorporeal. Please refrain from making that kind of conlusions. It's unnecessary.

It seems you agree "math" is immaterial, but then not. I know you say you don't, but the only thing I can think is that you do actually have a distaste for its other associations (incorporeal, spirits, etc). But, nevermind. Perhaps you're just being type 'A' like my wife when you think something ought to be a certain way (or maybe I'm being type 'A' in wanting you to understand "immaterial" in how I naturally mean it).

It seems from your comments here above, we could simply agree that math is "non-physical" i.e., it doesn't possess physical properties in space-time, isn't comprised of matter (i.e., is immaterial ), and the like.

Re: your comment math doesn't exist, it just is. This seems contradictory to me, like you're saying math doesn't exist, but just exists. For example, I believe math just is, and by that I'd mean that math just exists. Consciousness is another, for different reasons. Given I cannot fathom math never existing, and as I see matters math is clearly conceptual which makes it contingent upon a consciousness -- then add these two things together (eternal + consciousness) and it seems appropriate to ground them in what I'd understand to be God.

This seems to me a rather straight-forward solution, provided one has God in the world view. Whether or not such makes a good argument for God's existence, I'm doubtful. Given I already believe God exists, then grounding math in God is an easy pair for me.