Evidence for God from Science

So I've been having this thing in my mind for quite some time: God and math.
I find a good correlation between how math and theology works. How, as I've once explained to a peer of mine, similar the notion of axioms in proving a mathematical statement to how a theologian explains God.
Any math fans out there? More specifically the philosophical kind. I want to know how math and theology work
Resources are appreciated too but I prefer your opinions on the subject.

Yours truly,
Grey

I think you got a pretty interesting topic here. First off, there are actually many views on the subject of mathematics and theology.

Theology, as we understand it, is our interpretation of God. Not saying that theology does not have some difficult questions here. However, Mathematics on the other hand, has some immediate problematic questions that we need to ask ourselves. We immediately ask ourselves, where does mathematics exist? What is it like?

Depending on how you answer such questions will certainly say something about the strength of your theology. In my view, as well as several others here on the board, a Platonic view on mathematics is VERY problematic. So, many hold some kind of fictionist view or similar view because its a safer view to have. However, in my opinion, that view isn't a strong position to argue from. So, I hold a sort of dualist view. A Foundationalism/Rational realist philosophy where the alleged truths and existence of mathematics only is true and exists in understanding SOLELY AND ONLY BECAUSE OF God's existence. I feel its important to point out here, that in my position, the argument only goes in 1 direction. Meaning, I never use the latter to prove the former.

So, to answer a question you asked. In my view, mathematics is not analogous to theology in philosophy, nor in proof. However, I would agree that applied mathematics gives us some real insight to how brilliant God is.

A question I often like to bounce around is, would you be in agreement that mathematics that is said to be true in theory, but also states itself to be aware of its falsehood in practice proves that mathematics itself needs an axiom to be universally true?

Just something else maybe we can ponder here. I hope you found my view informative or interesting. The rational realist portion of my philosophy doesn't conflict with my theology. Other empiricist views however seem like they have problems and directly influences their theology more them they want to admit. It certainly is an interesting conversation though.

This sounds interesting, God invented mathematics, surely He's gotta play some part in it!

SB

A question I often like to bounce around is, would you be in agreement that mathematics that is said to be true in theory, but also states itself to be aware of its falsehood in practice proves that mathematics itself needs an axiom to be universally true?

Yes, I think it should. Wait, was that a rhetorical question? Oh, never mind.

Just something else maybe we can ponder here. I hope you found my view informative or interesting. The rational realist portion of my philosophy doesn't conflict with my theology. Other empiricist views however seem like they have problems and directly influences their theology more them they want to admit. It certainly is an interesting conversation though.

Indeed, I have found your view interesting and we are in agreement. I don't use that much math in Theology (at least I don't think so, hmm, multiplying food...). Anyway, the point I was first trying to make was that I thought there were similarities between Theology and Mathematics in that we deal with the Abstract. Hopefully, others might join in the conversation.

This sounds interesting, God invented mathematics, surely He's gotta play some part in it!

Here we go! Hip hip Hooray! I'm just giddy. We are in agreement Sam1995.

~Grey

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:
Here we go! Hip hip Hooray! I'm just giddy. We are in agreement Sam1995.

~Grey

Yep, we are in agreement. I think you're giddy too.

SB

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:Anyway, the point I was first trying to make was that I thought there were similarities between Theology and Mathematics in that we deal with the Abstract. Hopefully, others might join in the conversation.

You know, I've been pondering what you said here for a little while since I evidently missed it.

I was curious as to how you define "Abstract".

In my position, an interpretation of God isn't abstract at all. A perfect mental substance (All possible perfections) existing in understanding cannot exist in understanding alone, but must exist in reality. It is an imperfection to not exist in reality. Jesus' existence and ministry pretty much supports this in a separate argument.

Math, on the other hand is a different subject because numbers and mathematics aren't in spatial extension. However, they do exist in understanding and math is intuitive knowledge. I don't consider this "abstract", but then again that depends on how you define that word.
This is also pretty much backed up with studies showing that babies understand math.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/27/us/st ... atics.html
Happen to find the corresponding video, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxZAQn6MYCs

God invented mathematics

God can not invent, the same way he can not know anything new, there is no such thing as new. So either, mathematics is a divine science, or else it is man made system of accounts.

neo-x wrote:

God invented mathematics

God can not invent, the same way he can not know anything new, there is no such thing as new. So either, mathematics is a divine science, or else it is man made system of accounts.

That is an interesting point - that God cannot invent as that implies something he did not know before - never thought of it like that.

Silvertusk wrote:

neo-x wrote:

God invented mathematics

God can not invent, the same way he can not know anything new, there is no such thing as new. So either, mathematics is a divine science, or else it is man made system of accounts.

That is an interesting point - that God cannot invent as that implies something he did not know before - never thought of it like that.

It stems from divine simplicity Silver. I strongly recommend you look into it (Aquinas).

God and Math. Well, God is Great Mathematician and of course also Great Theoretical Physicist.
One of my university teachers wondered that our world is even describable with equations. Take for example Maxwell equations. Relatively simple and describing so much.

Silvertusk wrote:That is an interesting point - that God cannot invent as that implies something he did not know before - never thought of it like that.

Just wanted to make clear that my position isn't that God invented Math. (in someone else's response to me)
I said Mathematics exists and is true because and ONLY because God exists. Meaning, God has established the understanding of Mathematics. Understanding and Invention are not the same.

My position is not the same as someone who holds a divine simplicity position. They view Mathematics as fiction.

In my position, Existing in understanding and not in spatial extension does not mean it is a fiction.

Understanding has a different existence then a physical object, but it still exists. It just exists in a different sense, thats all.

Hopefully that clears that up.

domokunrox wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:That is an interesting point - that God cannot invent as that implies something he did not know before - never thought of it like that.

Just wanted to make clear that my position isn't that God invented Math. (in someone else's response to me)
I said Mathematics exists and is true because and ONLY because God exists. Meaning, God has established the understanding of Mathematics. Understanding and Invention are not the same.

My position is not the same as someone who holds a divine simplicity position. They view Mathematics as fiction.

In my position, Existing in understanding and not in spatial extension does not mean it is a fiction.

Understanding has a different existence then a physical object, but it still exists. It just exists in a different sense, thats all.

Hopefully that clears that up.

The only thing that is clear is that I have no understanding of philosophy at all.

domokunrox wrote:My position is not the same as someone who holds a divine simplicity position. They view Mathematics as fiction.

Wha? I honestly have no clue how you could possibly come to that conclusion but I'd like you to back that up if you would (in a different thread of course).

Byblos wrote:Wha? I honestly have no clue how you could possibly come to that conclusion but I'd like you to back that up if you would (in a different thread of course).

We can do it here. Its not off topic or derailing this thread.

Just want say that we're talking strictly about Mathematics here. Not any thing else like redness, browness, etc. Not doing this on purpose, if you want to talk about these other universals we can do that later.

There are only few views on Mathematics in regards to what it is in reality

Platonism (which I am sure we all mostly agree is wrong)
Which says that Math is non-spatial, non-temporal, non-physical, and non-mental (whatever they mean by that).

Immanent realism (Also known as moderate realism)
Which agrees with Platonism except for the non-physical part. They believe mathematics really does exist physically (Jac says he holds this position, and he advocates divine simplicity)
I have to come under the impression that this view believes that universals are instantiated. Universals exist within each "thing" on which each universal is predicated. I'm fairly sure that Aquinas has this view or very similar to this view, and it made its way to the Divine simplicity doctrine.
It should look pretty obvious that this view is pretty much saying that Mathematics is physics. Not metaphysics. If someone wants to argue against this point. I welcome it.

Conceptualism
Which says that numbers do exist, but they do not exist "independently of us" (whatever that means)

Nominalism (which is also sometimes called "anti realism")
Which essentially says that mathematics does not exist at all.
Now, there are many types of nominalism and some people could argue that immanent realism is a type of nominalism (I concur. Its fictionalism, just more simplified or contrived). How? Simple, this "physicalism" is just mistaken for what it really is....Pure Ontology. Also, we have plenty of reasons to believe that our senses are dubitable in regards to Mathematics. This, combined with some pretty obvious syllogistic errors pretty much leads us to the fact that Mathematics does not exist physically, but instead we have switched to fictional reasonings (which by the way isn't wrong in that "sense"). In fact, I feel that when we do switch over to fictional talk, we need to recognize that it is fictional talk. If its insisted that we're not talking about fictions, then theres a monism/pluralism problem with universals (I won't get into this, its really messy). Overall, what I'm trying to say is that scholastic theories aren't simple enough and run into bad problems when compared to modern thought (minus Kant, of course).

Now, I don't consider myself a Nominalst because I don't concede any point to Platonism. I consider myself a Foundationalist, with rational realism (not anti-realism).
How would something that is non-spatial, non-temporal, non-physical, and non-mental inform us of their presence? Sounds impossible because it actually is.
Now, you might be thinking that I take Descartes' modern Conceptualist view since we agree on Foundationism, but I think we differ a tad bit differently, but thats another subject

I guess what I would like to know is if theres anyone who holds a divine simplicity position and says they are a Nominalst (any kind Nominalst)? We can have a Math dialogue that would probably clarify my thoughts.
If not, who holds the position of divine simplicity/immanent realism? We can have a Math dialogue that would....well....something hopefully (I tried to have this dialogue with Jac, but he didn't seem very interested and it sounded like he was conceding Fictionalism).

I want to point this out again, so that nobody mistakes me here. Here is my quote

domokunrox wrote:the alleged truths and existence of mathematics only is true and exists in understanding SOLELY AND ONLY BECAUSE OF God's existence.

domokunrox wrote:

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:Anyway, the point I was first trying to make was that I thought there were similarities between Theology and Mathematics in that we deal with the Abstract. Hopefully, others might join in the conversation.

You know, I've been pondering what you said here for a little while since I evidently missed it.

I was curious as to how you define "Abstract".

In my position, an interpretation of God isn't abstract at all. A perfect mental substance (All possible perfections) existing in understanding cannot exist in understanding alone, but must exist in reality. It is an imperfection to not exist in reality. Jesus' existence and ministry pretty much supports this in a separate argument.

Math, on the other hand is a different subject because numbers and mathematics aren't in spatial extension. However, they do exist in understanding and math is intuitive knowledge. I don't consider this "abstract", but then again that depends on how you define that word.
This is also pretty much backed up with studies showing that babies understand math.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/27/us/st ... atics.html
Happen to find the corresponding video, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxZAQn6MYCs

Sorry for the really late reply dom,

I define abstract as we would define something metaphorically. Apparent in the realm above and apparent in the realm below. It's like the abstract interface in Java where one can extend that abstract class to other classes so as to inherit its methods. So in my definition, math is abstract but I think we don't contradict in our understanding of math and theology.
I hope this doesn't bring in more confusion. I'm really just starting out on philosophy as you can clearly see on the other post I made. Rather embarrassing really.

~Grey