Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Physics is the study of matter, energy, and force AKA the physical world. The physical world did not originate from physics.

Ken

How do you know that Ken?
How do you KNOW that what physics describes wasn't already there before it came to be?

Physics is the study of the physical. How is it possible to study the physical prior to the physical existing?

PaulSacramento wrote: I mean, a triangle has 3 sides even if there never existed a triangle, ever.

Things have shapes. People gave names to those shapes. The “thing” existed before it’s shape was given a name.

Ken

No Ken, you are missing this 100%.
If a triangle never existed, triangularity ( what it is to be a triangle) would still exist.
If you were to remove all triangles off the face of the earth, would triangularity cease to exist?

A triangle is a triangle NOT because of it's shape BUT because its shape is triangular.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Nicki wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I guess there was no motion if no one saw or measured it.
Maybe you can try and understand what my wife posted.

I'm inclined to agree with the non-Christians - maths and physics are the study and measuring of the natural world, not part of the natural world itself. Things still move if no one measures their speed, it's just that no one knows how fast they're going. A certain kind of plant may have grown to a certain height before anyone came along and said it was ten inches high, then someone else said it was 25 centimetres, and another person three hand-widths. God made (one way or another) the plant to grow as it did and I suppose he knew people would be able to measure it in different ways, but that's not a quality of the plant in itself.

The speed would still be the same even if no one measured it and the plant would still have grown to the same height if no one measured it.

You are confusing the essences of math/physics with the process of math/physics.

Math and physics are ways of expressing what is happening in the observable world ( and beyond perhaps), BUT they ARE happening.

Height and speed do not exist by themselves; they only exist in the context of something else that does exist by itself.

Ken

Yes, Ken, that is the problem you are not getting, they DO exist by themselves because they are NOT material "things" but attributes and essences.

Kenny wrote:

EssentialSacrifice wrote:Consider this hypothetical if humans had 6 fingers on each hand instead of 5 = So math concepts/facts would not look very different at all... just the math language.

Are you seeing the forest for the trees here Ken. Our man-made definitions have no bearing on the actuality of universal reality... words like math are simply our definition of explaining what is actually happening.
It happens... just so.. whether we define it or not, in a precise, repeatable understandable way mathematically.

My point was if humans had 6 fingers on each hand instead of 5, I don't think the sum of 7x2 would still equal 14

Ken

I think Ken is correct on this. I had a highschool shop teacher who cut off one of his fingers with a saw. He was horrible at math. Since he only had nine fingers, 9 X 2 was 4,280.

ken wrote:
My point was if humans had 6 fingers on each hand instead of 5, I don't think the sum of 7x2 would still equal 14.

Check and mate. How can one argue with that, especially since when two numbers are multiplied, the answer is the product, not the sum?

OBTUSE

Kenny wrote:

EssentialSacrifice wrote:Consider this hypothetical if humans had 6 fingers on each hand instead of 5 = So math concepts/facts would not look very different at all... just the math language.

Are you seeing the forest for the trees here Ken. Our man-made definitions have no bearing on the actuality of universal reality... words like math are simply our definition of explaining what is actually happening.
It happens... just so.. whether we define it or not, in a precise, repeatable understandable way mathematically.

My point was if humans had 6 fingers on each hand instead of 5, I don't think the sum of 7x2 would still equal 14

You're completely missing the point. Review Mrs K's post. This objection to yours would be like me saying, "I don't think that if you grew up in Spain rather than America, that dogs would still be dogs!" Well, obviously, you wouldn't call dogs "dogs." You'd call them perros. But that wouldn't mean that dogs would not be dogs, that perros would not be perros, and most importantly, that those linguistic terms would not refer to the same reality.

And that is what you are missing in this thread. Whatever the base is, whatever the mathematical language, the fact you are not grappling with is that this language does NOT simply refer to a human construct; rather, it refers to something that answers in reality itself. Dogs are real things, and we refer to them by the word "dog" or "perro" or whatever. Now, unicorns are not real things. The word "unicorn" (or whatever equivalent in whatever language) does not refer to anything that answers in reality, but it only refers to a human construct.

So here's the problem for you: why does 2+2=4 (in whatever language/base you want to use) work? Answer: because it answers to something in reality itself. What, then, does it refer to? What are the objects that these types of statements refer to?

Now, unicorns are not real things.

... wait, ... i just knew this thread would go too far !

Kenny wrote:My point was if humans had 6 fingers on each hand instead of 5, I don't think the sum of 7x2 would still equal 14

Ken

You would be wrong then, Ken.

There are humans with 6 fingers and I bet you a bazillion dollars their math concepts are exactly the same as ours. //www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories ... 12-6448609

I know a guy with no arms and he counts the same as us. He doesn't need fingers to understand math.

Humans are INTELLIGENT. Our number systems are not based on the number of fingers we have. We make up systems that work no mater what they look like... decimal (base 10), binary (base 2), octal (base eight), hexadecimal (base 16), etc.

All number systems equate (another math concept). So no matter what number system you use, you can translate those numbers into another number system.

• 7*2=14 (decimal)
• 111*10=1110 (binary)
• 7*2=16 (octal)
• 7*2=E (hexadecimal)

Simply different languages expressing the same mathematical fact

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Physics is the study of matter, energy, and force AKA the physical world. The physical world did not originate from physics.

Ken

How do you know that Ken?
How do you KNOW that what physics describes wasn't already there before it came to be?

Physics is the study of the physical. How is it possible to study the physical prior to the physical existing?

PaulSacramento wrote: I mean, a triangle has 3 sides even if there never existed a triangle, ever.

Things have shapes. People gave names to those shapes. The “thing” existed before it’s shape was given a name.

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote: No Ken, you are missing this 100%.
If a triangle never existed, triangularity ( what it is to be a triangle) would still exist.

It would only exist as a concept; it wouldn't exist in reality

PaulSacramento wrote: If you were to remove all triangles off the face of the earth, would triangularity cease to exist?

Only as a concept. The triangle is a description of something that is real.

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Nicki wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I guess there was no motion if no one saw or measured it.
Maybe you can try and understand what my wife posted.

I'm inclined to agree with the non-Christians - maths and physics are the study and measuring of the natural world, not part of the natural world itself. Things still move if no one measures their speed, it's just that no one knows how fast they're going. A certain kind of plant may have grown to a certain height before anyone came along and said it was ten inches high, then someone else said it was 25 centimetres, and another person three hand-widths. God made (one way or another) the plant to grow as it did and I suppose he knew people would be able to measure it in different ways, but that's not a quality of the plant in itself.

The speed would still be the same even if no one measured it and the plant would still have grown to the same height if no one measured it.

You are confusing the essences of math/physics with the process of math/physics.

Math and physics are ways of expressing what is happening in the observable world ( and beyond perhaps), BUT they ARE happening.

Height and speed do not exist by themselves; they only exist in the context of something else that does exist by itself.

Ken

Yes, Ken, that is the problem you are not getting, they DO exist by themselves because they are NOT material "things" but attributes and essences.

I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with it.

Ken

Ok, so... if a tree fell in the forest and and no one was there to hear it .... does it make a sound ?

I say yes ... but I'm confident I'm seeing the forest for those darn trees ...

Mrs K wrote:

Kenny wrote:My point was if humans had 6 fingers on each hand instead of 5, I don't think the sum of 7x2 would still equal 14

Ken

You would be wrong then, Ken.

There are humans with 6 fingers and I bet you a bazillion dollars their math concepts are exactly the same as ours. //www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories ... 12-6448609

I know a guy with no arms and he counts the same as us. He doesn't need fingers to understand math.

Humans are INTELLIGENT. Our number systems are not based on the number of fingers we have. We make up systems that work no mater what they look like... decimal (base 10), binary (base 2), octal (base eight), hexadecimal (base 16), etc.

All number systems equate (another math concept). So no matter what number system you use, you can translate those numbers into another number system.

• 7*2=14 (decimal)
• 111*10=1110 (binary)
• 7*2=16 (octal)
• 7*2=E (hexadecimal)

Simply different languages expressing the same mathematical fact

I know the system would be the same, but because the base is different, (10 instead of 12) that makes every thing else different IMO.

The first 10 numbers (0 thru 9) of our current system are single digit.
Then you get into the double digit numbers and that continues until 10 to the 2nd power (10 thru 99)
Then you get into the triple digit numbers until you reach 10 to the 3rd power (100 thru 999)

Then you get into the 4 digit numbers and so fourth.

I am saying if our number system was based upon 12, the first 12 numbers would be single digit, after that you get into the double digits and that will continue till 12 to the second power, and that would continue till you reach 12 to the 3rd power and so fourth.

If math were based on the number 12 as in my hypothetical, in order to get the sum of 2 single numbers added together to equal a double digit number, it would require larger numbers added than what would be required now with our numerical system based on the number 10. I see that alone as a difference; perhaps you don’t thus where we disagree.

Ken

EssentialSacrifice wrote:Ok, so... if a tree fell in the forest and and no one was there to hear it .... does it make a sound ?

I say yes ... but I'm confident I'm seeing the forest for those darn trees ...

If we used the hypothetical I mentioned on the post dated 4/21/16 at 8:46am, do you agree with me that 7*2=12 instead of 14? If not please explain why

Ken

Kenny wrote:

EssentialSacrifice wrote:Ok, so... if a tree fell in the forest and and no one was there to hear it .... does it make a sound ?

I say yes ... but I'm confident I'm seeing the forest for those darn trees ...

If we used the hypothetical I mentioned on the post dated 4/21/16 at 8:46am, do you agree with me that 7*2=12 instead of 14? If not please explain why

Ken

ES,

This is the example Ken is referring to:

ken wrote:
Consider this hypothetical if humans had 6 fingers on each hand instead of 5, and the numeral system in place was based upon the total number of fingers we have, so it looked like this:
0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,#,@ 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,1#,1@,20
Under such a numeral system 7*2 =12.

Ken wrote:
Only as a concept. The triangle is a description of something that is real.

ken wrote:
Consider this hypothetical if humans had 6 fingers on each hand instead of 5, and the numeral system in place was based upon the total number of fingers we have, so it looked like this:
0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,#,@ 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,1#,1@,20
Under such a numeral system 7*2 =12.

I seriously believe we all get what your point is about the varying of our base number system and the changes that would inevitably bring, but that's of no consequence in this conversation.

I wish, Ken I could get you to see more than the numbers. So I'll try one last: and the only constant I can think of that has been relatively consistent is light ie:... the speed of light. (not a concept of light) Unchanged from about day one. If we weren't here to observe wouldn't light still travel at 186Kmi./sec ? just, almost certainly not called "speed" or even "light" ... at that speed , if we weren't here to name it... Do you believe there was the "element" of light before us ? Do you believe the "element" of light would be present in the universe if we weren't ? Is there in fact a universe if we aren't ?

Ken wrote:
Only as a concept. The triangle is a description of something that is real.

ken wrote:
Consider this hypothetical if humans had 6 fingers on each hand instead of 5, and the numeral system in place was based upon the total number of fingers we have, so it looked like this:
0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,#,@ 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,1#,1@,20
Under such a numeral system 7*2 =12.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:I seriously believe we all get what your point is about the varying of our base number system and the changes that would inevitably bring,

Does this mean you agree with me?

EssentialSacrifice wrote:but that's of no consequence in this conversation.

It is of consequence to me in this conversation because that is the point I was trying to make to the person I was discussing with.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:I wish, Ken I could get you to see more than the numbers. So I'll try one last: and the only constant I can think of that has been relatively consistent is light ie:... the speed of light. (not a concept of light) Unchanged from about day one. If we weren't here to observe wouldn't light still travel at 186Kmi./sec ? just, almost certainly not called "speed" or even "light" ... at that speed , if we weren't here to name it... Do you believe there was the "element" of light before us ? Do you believe the "element" of light would be present in the universe if we weren't ? Is there in fact a universe if we aren't ?

Light exist by itself. Unlike triangles, it's existence is not in reference to something else

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Nicki wrote:
I'm inclined to agree with the non-Christians - maths and physics are the study and measuring of the natural world, not part of the natural world itself. Things still move if no one measures their speed, it's just that no one knows how fast they're going. A certain kind of plant may have grown to a certain height before anyone came along and said it was ten inches high, then someone else said it was 25 centimetres, and another person three hand-widths. God made (one way or another) the plant to grow as it did and I suppose he knew people would be able to measure it in different ways, but that's not a quality of the plant in itself.

The speed would still be the same even if no one measured it and the plant would still have grown to the same height if no one measured it.

You are confusing the essences of math/physics with the process of math/physics.

Math and physics are ways of expressing what is happening in the observable world ( and beyond perhaps), BUT they ARE happening.

Height and speed do not exist by themselves; they only exist in the context of something else that does exist by itself.

Ken

Yes, Ken, that is the problem you are not getting, they DO exist by themselves because they are NOT material "things" but attributes and essences.

I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with it.

Ken

Fair enough.