I studied at two Ivy League universities, taught mathematics for 19 years, and have spoken on many campuses in the northeastern US including Yale, Columbia, MIT, Rutgers, RPI, Carnegie Mellon, and NYU. Mathematics is indeed the language through which God designed our universe, and the evidence for that only grows stronger with new discoveries in physics, molecular biology, and other fields. Design is in fact everywhere which is why, as the Pew studies have shown, over 80% of mathematicians believe that there is a God. Life is not a chemical accident!
"over 80% of mathematicians believe that there is a God" I'm a faculty member at a math department in an R1 institution. I have met only a handful of people in my field (less than I can count with my hand) who believe in a god. I need a source for this, especially considering that other studies have shown that most scientists are agnostic/atheists. I suspect that the proportion of mathematicians who do not believe is higher. www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ I also want to point out that you have a BA in history, and an MA in education. Neither of which prepares you to understand mathematics at a sufficient level to discuss this subject. And no, teaching math to high school students is not enough, no matter how long you do it.
@@richardgamrat1944 I think he is referring to this poll: www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ that shows that 80% of the *general public* believe in god, while the majority of scientists do not. My guess, from being in academia (math), is that this number is much lower for mathematicians, and much lower when you consider the personal god, e.g. christian god. I'm going to be charitable and say this guy misread the article (how? I don't know), or maybe there's another Pew study that completely contradicts this study. But, I'm being very, very charitable.
The evolutionary theory is pure speculation without any empirical basis. No lab experiment, computer simulation or other empirical data supports evolution.
That's wonderful, if ever I heard an argument from authority this is it. Well done sir.... It appears that your Ivy league education missed out on logical fallacies 101. I have a post graduate degree from one of the most prestigious universities in the world. It's also a physical science degree. Of course, that's not an argument for anything. Saying I have studied X as University Y and lectured for Z number of years is not evidence that God exists.
@@freddan6fly Actually Whoever picked the initial conditions and physical constants was indeed the most brilliant mathematician we’ve ever encountered. With the magnitude of the cosmological constant being pinned down, all (of the many) cosmological physicists (except one) agree that both the initial conditions and the fundamental constants are on a knife-edge for any complex existence at all and have apparent fine-tuning, and that this begs explanation. Even Alan Guth now acknowledges this. Most of them hope it is anthropic, but Roger Penrose (co-author of A Brief History of Time) says the complex and intricate fine-tuning is so impossible that anthropic is no longer reasonable. (It is vastly more probable that you have quantum-fluctuated into existence for an hour, with memories and a local environment included, than it is to have found yourself in one in the on of 10^XXX universes, which btw we have no evidence exist). Not only is it now evidence that chance didnt do it, but if designed then the designer is a mathematical genius beyond all comprehension to have created this. Very prominent theoretical physicist Michio Kaku wonders if a universe with any complex ensembles of matter could be achieved any other way at all, since it is so intricate and balanced. Just the cosmological constant is on a one in 10^55 knife-edge, such that if any higher no chemicals could have formed and if lower the universe would have immediately collapsed and ceased.
@@ibperson7765 There is no evidence there was an entity "who picked the initial conditions and physical constants" for our universe. Without QG and TOE we don't even know how many physical constants there are. We don't know if the physical constant(s) must have its/their value or can vary. What a religious science communicator Micho Kaku says is not science. What a religious and an agnostic scientist speculate over is not science. The scientific consensus among cosmologist is that we don't know why the constant(s) have its/their value. To say goddunit is by default an argument from ignorance. To assign an odds to it is an argument from ignorance. I can also pull an odds out of my behind: The odds for an existence of a god is one in 10!^10!^10!^10!. That is a number with more digits than fermions and bosons in the universe, so I win.
@@freddan6fly Well if you searched “susskind fine tuning” youll find the inventor/discoverer of string theory disagrees with you. He discusses the possibility that there are other models and the constants we think are arbitrary are not. Isnt reasonable that it’ll be solved that way. Cosmological constant is tuned perfectly. Initial conditions that we know of are too. The knife edge of all knife edges. If you do the same for longterm fine tuning holdout Alan Guth, he does now too. Same search roger penrose co-author of “a brief history of time”. And the others. It’s you and Sean Carroll alone in the woods on that one. As I wrote many of them still hope for an imagined giant multiverse with 10^150 universes and penrose shows why thats no longer plausible. Design from a mind is the only source that seems reasonable. (Einstein and Heisenberg and many many many others thought that was the case even before knowing the extent of fine tuning was clear). But you dont get to hear any of the logic of this because of the dogma of the day. Steeped in the lie of scientific materialism (which is self-contradictory) from birth, as I was.
@@ibperson7765 If I search "susskind fine tuning" - I'll find Leonard Susskind's private view on fine tuning. He have not published any paper on the subject. I don't agree with him. Btw in no part of his presentation he says "goddunit". He is just amazed over nature, in his case physics, just like trees can be amazing and still evolved naturally, the same goes for the universe. What we do know is that the exponential growth of the universe stopped at a time 10^-35 seconds after the beginning of big bang. We got some/most the physics for this period of time, but we don't (yet) got the answer to why the exponential expansion stopped. Our biggest accelerator takes us back to 10^-12 seconds after the big bang when the electroweak force was one force. String theory is not yet accepted science. It is a hypothesis. What we *do need* to judge if the universe is fine tuned is both of all of physics: Both Quantum Gravity and Theory Of Everything, a theory that merges the strong force with the electroweak force. But we also need another universe to compare with. Sean Carroll says (rightfully) that the universe seems fine tuned for black holes, since there are more black holes in the universe than living creatures on earth.
This has to be the worst argument I have ever heard from Craig, and that's saying something. Being a mathematician who studies quantum field theory, I find the part at 3:17 to be especially misguided. If you think imaginary numbers can't have any place in the physical world, you don't know what imaginary numbers actually are. Spoiler, the name is a horrible misnomer. The imagination of nature is far greater than man's. They keep saying that naturalists can't explain it, but I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned (god).
Are you saying there's no absolute truth? and why CAN'T the answer be God? The imagination of nature is far greater than man's, that sounds like something that would be supernatural.
@@raspberrymist That's just god-did-it, personal incredulity with supposed imagination found in nature. And then there's the absolute truth -- while I am not denying it's existence rather I am just not affirming it -- what is "absolutely true" may never be known, and thus it is not useful. I mean could you even tell us the absolute "truth" without relying on faith? History proved us that it's a resounding "NO". Science, with it's language Math, is used to get as close to the truth as if possible through trial-and-error and self-correction, and while it's not absolute truth, at least it's useful.
You cannot believe in a God but you believe BY FAITH that "nature has an imagination". Atheists are the greatest religion by far in our known world. Atheists have WAY more faith than any belief system. Can you prove what imagination is scientifically or is your statement pure nonsense? Maybe you can explain what mind is? Not the brain, but mind? Logic?
@@raspberrymist Why can't the answer be god?? You demonstrate experimentally to us all why god should or must be the answer, and then we've got something going. And yes I believe that the true statements about the nature of of the universe are absolute, which is to say, they don't depend on our opinions of them. I just don't have the hubris to think that I do or even can come to know all of those truths. We know some things about the universe and don't know others. Let's just keep looking for more truths! In the meantime, keep religion out of science classrooms.
@@redfaux74 //You cannot believe in a God but you believe BY FAITH that "nature has an imagination".Atheists are the greatest religion by far in our known world. Atheists have WAY more faith than any belief system.// That theism hasn't met it's burden of proof is not a matter of faith. All it takes to be an atheist is to be aware of this fact. //Can you prove what imagination is scientifically or is your statement pure nonsense? Maybe you can explain what mind is? Not the brain, but mind? Logic?// Let's say this can't be shown scientifically here and now, that doesn't mean the answers aren't there. There are many things we once couldn't explain but we can now. A lack of explanation to a difficult question now isn't evidence God is the explanation. You need more than that to show God is the explanation.
He may have designed your brain to be good at something else, something you may haven't found yet. Trust in the Most High Creator, He and His Word will not let you down
I used to say to atheists in discussions, that their theory of the Universe and life, demands many miracles! So, between the two explanations, I preffer the Universe created by God!
I cannot believe anyone would still doubt the existence of God after seeing such a perfect design of the universe and the spotless beauty of nature. The infinite genius of God seen in His uncountable creations is just way beyond our understanding. Just one example: Do you know the earth is at a perfect distance from the Sun? If the earth is moved a notch closer or farther, the whole world is doomed. Thus perfect distance was fashioned by God and the system has stood for over 4.5billion years! Yes, it is the command of God. It never fails!
100% of the Universe is uninhabitable within a rounding error of a billionth, and the rest of it is home to microbes and parasites that could make your last days alive a living hell. Earth also isn't at a perfect distance. It could have been tens of millions of kilometres closer or farther from the Sun and life could still have come about.
@@HarryNicNicholas i was gonna say that it could be that god doesn't want everyone to survive cancer because of a greater purpose but why would god want someone to die to cancer what is the necessity of death in this situation so than why not cure all people do some deserve to be healed while others don't it just makes no sense
“If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics.” ~ Sir Roger Bacon
So take your quote -since you believe it to be truth- as a matter of the science of Philosophy... did you use math to come to this conclusion or philosophy? Therefore, philosophy presupposes math.
well bacon was clearly an idiot :) that is in no way a modern definition of the scientific method :) you doubt everything, no theory is above attack .. and never ever should be. Just because we cannot disprove a theory today, doesnt mean new evidence wont pulverise it tomorrow .. we can only think of things as TEMPORARILY correct, or close enough to observable reality. "certainty without doubt" would literally mean the death of science
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:03 🧮 Understanding Mathematics in the Universe 02:20 🤔 Philosophical Perspectives on Mathematics' Effectiveness 03:44 🌌 The Argument for God's Existence Made with HARPA AI
This video considers & dismisses this superficial explanation. The question is not merely, “Why does it describe nature so effectively?” but “Why does it APPLY to nature so effectively?”. Why can we use descriptions of what has happened in one situation, to make predictions of what will happen in every situation? What is forcing the universe to abide by these procedures?
@@geomicpri the video solves a mystery by adding a greater mystery. And it goes the route of using ignorance as a type of evidence. "I dont understand, therefor god"
@@TheAndnor No, if anything, you could sooner accuse it of going the route of arrogance; “I DO understand, therefore God.” But I think you’d fail there too.
@@geomicpri sure, arrogance is also present. But so is ignorance. either way, their reasoning for inserting a god must also apply to their god, so its not an explanation.
"Because God did it" is not a conclusive, or persuasive, or even plausible argument. You are reasoning towards a forgone conclusion (which may yet be correct) not trying to follow the logic to wherever it leads.
Without God you have no reason to believe that mathematics work, you have no reason to believe that the laws of logic exist. You're simply stuck begging the question. As a Christian I know these things exist and work properly because they're rooted in the nature of God. You're mad that this isn't conclusive and yet your entire existence is not conclusive without God as the foundation.
@@vanyatsurkan6917 Really? Let's look at the Law of Identity, one of the classic laws of logic. The Law of Identity, A=A, states that a thing is what it is and is not what it is not. So we have two things here, the statement A=A and that to what the statement refers, being, that things can only be what they are. It's impossible for matters to be otherwise, things can only be what they are, they can't be what they are not. It's this impossibility for things to not be what they are that makes it an absolute and universal rule and therefore a Law of Logic. So there we are, an acount of a Law of Logic and God doesn't come into it.
@@vanyatsurkan6917 : I don't see a single thing that suggests a god is necessary to call 1 & 1 2. It just happened because we found it to be a necessary tool like a bowl to hold food. Look at Roman numerals. They begin with a collection of sticks. I, II, III,
@@vanyatsurkan6917 The reason to believe that the laws of logic work is that it can be demonstrated empirically. The fact that you can't be absolutely certain about it is irrelevant because there is nothing that you can be absolutely certain about. Absolute certainty is not a requirement for anything to be practically useful. Also if god created the laws of logic can he change it to his likings whenever he wants? That means what we believe about the laws of logic now can simply become invalid whenever god decides so. So throwing in god doesn't add anything to our confidence in the laws of logic. God just a superfluous additional assumption that we have to take on faith that doesn't add anything useful.
@@Whatsisface4 Boring. "Law" is misleading, rather postulate/axiom is what they really are. The classical "laws" are just postulates assumed to be self-evident via human intuition, but no real proof. "a thing is what it is and is not what it is not" Which is nothing but a baseless assertion on. The first part of this statement already implies a thing/entity is bounded or categorizable in some way ('what it is') but this may not be the case if for example the thing/entity in question is limitless/ineffable in some ways. Or in other words, not strictly countable (like an infinite sequence). This would invalidate the very task of trying to identify it and therefore incapable of being part of the law of identity. Aristotle's three axioms are just assumptions based on human cognitive limits, nothing more. Laws...how cute
This is limited thinking. Naturalist dont believe its "happy coincidence". They discover nature and try to figure out what laws operate them using mathematical explanations. It's not that they formulate mathematical equations and later realize "oh, its something". Although they realize that one mathematical equation actually applies to many phenomena. And also, there are phenomena that defies some established laws. For example, black holes are enomaly in gravitational law.
You are missing the point here. Why Math is. Math is not a product of human mind, but a discovery transcribed mentally from the Universe. Fundamentaly this intrinsic logic of relationships and ratios is behind the Universe, it also can be said that the math is the result of how the Universe is. In both cases this relationship in itself shows that the properties of the universe are fully ratio-nal. As Nikola Tesla said: "What one man calls God, another calls the laws of physics." What atheism in nutshell is saying that the laws aren't constructed rationally. But intrinsically they are. This relationship between abstract and material cannot be expanded as "coinsidence" because it is self reference tautology - "coinsidence" is a mathematical property of probability.
Clearly you are ignorant of history of science and math. At least read Eugene's paper. There are many cases where math was conceived first and later that turned out to reflect reality.
@@LyubomirIko No, that's not what atheism says. Atheism is not believing in god. An atheist can be ignorant of what the laws of physics are and what math is and they're still an atheist. For that matter, an atheist can believe in another supernatural explanation (that isn't god) for the laws of physics. Ultimately we can't test whether or not any of these explanations are correct. So I think it's best to not make any assumptions and accept that we don't know why the universe has patterns that can be understood and described by a rational mind.
@@sugetsumillenium2112 No, I don't think I can. That would require knowing why the universe works the way it works, which isn't something we can investigate, at least right now. Of course, I *could* just make up an explanation (which would need to be unfalsifiable so that you can't prove me wrong), but that wouldn't get us anywhere now would it?
I am an orthodox Christian with education in math, science, and engineering. I know this is a high level presentation, but one must be careful when slinging around terms like miracles (a very loaded (connotative) word usually referring to exceptions to the way things normally work, but mean something else here that perhaps need not be called a miracle.) And even the scope of what mathematics can do (in our hands) is more limited that what is suggested. In simple physical systems, with OBJECTS experiencing FORCES which do follow simple laws, we can create differential equation (or other mathematical models) that fully define the classical mechanics of the system. And WHEN these equations can be solved (not all can), we get a mathematical description of the behavior of that system over time, etc.. As the system gets more parts the equations get too hairy and eventually become unsolvable (to us) so we resort to numerical iterated approximations of the solutions that can be as accurate as we want. But at some point, we cannot even do such iterative approximations because real-world computation speeds cannot handle the complexity. Then we look for new laws and formulas that govern or describe new and useful EMERGENT PROPERTIES (& behaviors) that EMERGE and for awhile we can often find math that describes the net behavior of the system even though we cease to be able to computing it from the simpler underlying laws. We find that there are heuristic and statistical formulas that work pretty well, for a few kinds of behavior, but we cannot know or predict everything about the system behavior. [Though likely God can see it.] At yet higher levels of complexity, or size (where quantum and relativistic effects emerge, we find that only statistical solutions can be found, the system is no longer strictly deterministic--there are things that are unobservable to us that affect behavior [where we could imagine God fiddling with system behavior in ways that can never be observed--the realm of Miracles]. When you get to subatomic or biological or human levels, only a few things can be described mathematically, even with statistics, and most behavior is uncaptureable with mathematics--there is a lot that cannot even be described by us, even though everything "below" is coming out of "physical laws" but if we are clever, we can find new things that can be described by mathematics and new kinds of mathematics so that we can engineer the system to make it do what we want. [Of course God may not be limited in these ways, and indeed likely is not relying just on mathematics to see and control.]. CONCLUSIONS: There are indeed a lot of things that allow mathematical analysis This can be beautiful and impressive, but like all the creations of mankind, it is a humble and weak thing compared to what God can do with the universe. And it may be that God does not use math Himself, but still may have chosen to build in these math-modelable qualities into his design primarily FOR OUR BENEFIT, so that we can understand how to control some things, and to make the universe not be entirely inscrutable to us.
The very meaning of supernatural is that which is beyond our experience of what we deem as natural. A supernatural being,therefore may not be affected by cold or heat or perhaps not needing air or water, light or darkness etc or become physically tired or hungry etc. They are unaffected by things that affect us,also having an ability to be everywhere at the same time, just like the ambient air that surrounds us or the ability to dematerialise and pass through solid objects . Things we would consider as a miracle to do.
The earth has never existed… 4.6 Billion/Infinity=0. I’m also an Engineer/Math major and I followed your wording very carefully. Why are you avoiding the answer to your own explanations?
My 11 and 13 year old sons are big fans of Numberphile and 3blue1brown and have become quite the math nerds. Their response to this was "whoa". I think it encouraged their love of math even more because it's a way for them to tap into God's mind.
It's a shame the entire argument presented in this video is wrong then. Humans created systems of mathematics to describe reality. When there's a breakdown in our understanding of maths that leads to disagreement with reality, we either alter our current mathematical systems or create new ones to better describe what we see in nature. You might as well ask why a video game controller fits your hands: because we designed controllers to fit our hands. Not because our hands were designed to fit controllers.
Mathematics is a man made language that defines and describes how reality operates. To proffer mathematics as evidence for a mythological deity is ridiculous.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!
The conclusion that God exists because mathematics is applicable is not logically sound. The applicability of mathematics to the natural world may be a remarkable and nontrivial fact, but it does not necessarily imply the existence of a deity. There are many other explanations for the applicability of mathematics, including the idea that mathematics is a human invention that reflects the underlying structure of the physical universe, or that mathematical patterns exist because of evolution and natural selection. Additionally, the idea that the existence of a deity is required to explain the applicability of mathematics is a matter of religious belief, and not a scientifically or logically proven fact. As such, this argument fails to establish a compelling case for the existence of God.
As a mathematician, I must confess, I've never thought about this before. Excellent argument. I do wonder though wheter mathematics is a contingent (i.e. created) concept, or whether it exists necessarily.
@@abraao2213 Are you familiar with the incompleteness theorem, or the undefinability theorem? It states that a formal system, such as logic, has, at its core, something that is unprovable (axiom). If god is logical (or if logic is an expression of how god thinks), that means god also contains something that is unprovable (even to him). This seems to be a tricky proposition, as it invokes a modified version of the Euthyphro dilemma. If god is logic, then god is not "complete" (from the incompleteness theorem), but if god gives us logic, it can change, making it subjective and not universal, as god can change logic. It's a dilemma, because either choice leads to conclusions that are uncomfortable. Something to think about.
@@dr.shousa I am aware of this theorem. But I do not see how this can affect God, since God is the Truth himself He will always knows for sure anything He states, so this theorem can eve apply to us, mere mortals with limited knowledge, but not to God, that is whom defines what is and what is not. If I am not mistaken, axioms can be understood also as self evident truth, something that does not need to be proven because it is self evident truth, so the unproven does not entail absence of knowledge.
@@dr.shousa also I cannot see how this leads to euthyphro dilemma of sorts, because if God can be illogical then he can be logical and illogical at the same time, if God can be illogical then there is no dilemma. The dilemma actually is illogical, because it assumes that God can do something illogical. It assumes God can actualize something illogical, if He can, then what is the dilemma?
@@RstRlx The video basically says atheists don't have an explanation of the applicability of mathematics whereas theists do and that explanation is God. That's a God of the gaps reasoning, so I don't really take that as a defense for premise 2.
That was an amazing argument for God. I was trying to use this argument, but I wasn't all that good at wording it correctly. I really like this argument. It is one of my favorite. Thank you for explaining it so well.
It's not that you weren't able to word it its just that this argument is a logical fallacy, because we've created mathematics based on our observations to the world around us, and based on these rules we've reached possibilities that have not been witnessed yet so we've extracted mathematics from our observations of the physical world, its only natural for it to work with it and to answer the question of why it does, the answer is neither of us know, not a theist or atheist could answer that question right now
@@mr.raider744 It's not just the way mathematics work with the physical world, but the way the physical world (and mathematics which are essentially the representation of the physical world) works within itself that is miraculous. One such example would be Euler's identity, which elegantly connects all the seemingly unrelated components of mathematics that are drawn from everywhere (e a transcendental that represents natural growth, pi from geometry, i from imaginary numbers, and just -1 and 0) and put it in a beautiful and simple equation. We of course can say "yeah that's just how things are. Things were just like that from the very beginning," but it seems inexplicable when we ask "why" it is the way it is.
@@mr.raider744 that cannot be the case because there are mathematical formulas, like i, that cannot have any physical or universal relation to any other thing
What is the mystery here? 1. The universe has patterns. 2. Mathematics is the study of patterns. 3. The universe's patterns can be described with mathematics. Solved.
Uhh... no. The language of math is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive. We use math to create models (descriptions) of the universe around us, and the models we come up with are always being modified to better fit what we see with more and better data. If you don't know this, you've never taken a real math class in a real school.
Yes, math is descriptive of reality. We calculate the laws of nature using maths, but the fact that it works implies that the universe operates according to a mathematical blueprint. If it didn't, maths couldn't describe reality.
@@apologetix2577 You are just scientifically illiterate. Math is the language we invented to describe reality. We get better and better models. Newton's law of gravity work for most of what happens in our solar system, but not for procession of Mercury's orbit, gravitational waves and light bending. General relativity works for these cases. But not perfect. We can not predict the orbits of the planets 10 billion years from now.
@@TheLyricsGuy No you are misunderstanding me on purpose. Numbers as an idea exists. Go read history of mathematics. Only know and unknown humans on that list, not a single god.
@@TheLyricsGuy I know that oc thinks that abstract numbers exist, but I disagree. The concept of there being two things makes intuitive sense, but just think about two cells for a moment. A couple of hours ago they were one cell. At what point in time did the number 2 start describing them? I would argue, that there isn't an answer to this.
“The physical world operates mathematically” is an unproven claim. The only thing we can assert for now is that mathematics seems to be a pretty good set of tools to model how the physical world operates up to a certain degree of precision. You can’t infer from that that there exist a mathematical set of tools that perfectly models how the physical world operates. Plus the only way it would not violate the Gödels’ incompleteness theorem would be to posit that the physical world is not all there is. This too is an unproven claim that leads to circular reasoning.
I find your comment illogical. Mathematics seems to prove reality is not running on randomness, but following rules that are described by maths. One example is the ballistic path of a bullet, but also, the so many, if not all phenomenons following a Normal distribution pattern from which we can deduct a probability that is related to standard deviation.
BeyondAnyBeliefs it could just mean that there is always a mathematical model that is a better approximation of how the universe operates. That does not mean that there is one that matches exactly how the universe operates.
How did they find out that planet Mercury will be a little late on horizon next Tuesday? By using mathematics. And when they looked, it sure was late. So the claim is valid. The world is governed mathematically. The question was is physical world all there is? No, there is also this set of mathematical tools that exists beside it. There are two worlds, thew world of ideas and the physical world. We can imagine, that without the physical world, there would still be this other world of just numbers. Now the question is, also, how does this physical world emerge? Can it emerge from immaterial mathematics, or how does it relate at least, to this other realm? The research has been done on that question, with this video or otherwise. What they did with this research is they reverse engineered the matter. The smallest matter, they found out, is only half material, half immaterial. Like photon, for example, it has some property measured in meters, but that all that is has, it doesn't feel any kilograms or any seconds. So this fundamental matter is already half mathematical half physical. Now this is not exactly Godel's theorem, but because, once you have sheer dimensionless numbers in the first realm, they can be arranged on a line, then you get a dimension, then an imaginary number can be added, then you get a notion of other dimensions. Then name the dimensions meter, second and kilogram, any name will do. Then in the realm of mathematics, you have infinitely many dimensions with infinitely many possible names, and one thing is also there, natural constants. They exist simply because the numbers and the dimensions exist. And that numbers do wonders. They "relate" somehow meter to second (constant c), second to kilogram (Planck's constant), kilogram to temperature (by Boltzman's constant... or some other number for some other universe, all ideas are there). But that is all still all in the immaterial world. The question still remains unanswered. How does the break through from immaterial to material world happen? First guess should be, obviously, that it happens through things that are half material half immaterial.
Kasius Klej that’s the thing though: you are still making an unproven (and I’d argue probably unprovable) claim that the world is governed by mathematics, where the most we can say right now is that it seems that given a degree of precision, we are always able to find some mathematics that allows us to accurately model how the world behaves. Also, you claim that there is somehow the immaterial and the material world, and classify mathematics and ideas in the immaterial without any proof of the matter. Ideas and hence mathematics could simply be seen as emerging abstractions represented by brain states and transitions following specific and recurring patterns. Nothing immaterial there.
@@Steponlyone No, the ideas are not material by definition. Take away the whole material world, for example. What's left? Numbers 1,2,3, and others are certainly still there. They are immaterial, but they exist. And then about the claim. Yes, I think the same. It cannot be proven.To be more precise, the planets, for example, obey the laws of motion, and these are physical laws, expressed by mathematics. But this is a bad example. Take for example 1 kilogram of anything. That is material by definition. But that kilogram of anything also exists, or rather the immaterial copy of it, in the world of mathematics. There in this world it is just a combination of number one and an arbitrary name, like kilogram.
This is just a "God of the gaps" argument. The universe operates with consistency. Things don't suddenly start behaving differently. Light has the same speed; gravity has the same strength; atoms have the same properties etc. That enabled us to develop a consistent language to describe these consistent things. I don't see anything surprising in that. All Dr Craig is doing is pointing at that and going "God did it!" I'd like to see his evidence. Oh, he doesn't have any. He never has any. All he has is a hypothesis. My guess is he would argue that the consistency of the universe comes from God since he argues God created everything (see his Kalam and fine-tuning arguments). But he also argues that God makes it inconsistent sometimes with miracles (see his arguments about the resurrection). So if it's consistent then it's God and if it's inconsistent it's God. How very convenient. If your a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you're William Lane Craig then everything looks like God. However, all he ever offers are hypotheses. He hasn't ever put any evidence on the table to confirm his hypotheses. It's all just what he reckons. But there is no reason to believe any of it is actually true, unless you count "I like these beliefs," which I don't count and he does.
1.The god of the void is an overused outdated atheistic cliché because you really don't understand the argument because you obviously haven't read his chapter on this argument, you've also never read books on the philosophy of mathematics because oo really is a huge problem. 2. On atheism, the incredible applicability of mathematics is just a coincidence and it has nothing to do with consistency (you confuse logic and mathematics), but with the mathematical structure of the universe, if everything was the result of chance we would expect only chaos, indeed chaos is not metaphysically impossible, or we would have primitive mathematics like arithmetic and not an elegant equation with which we describe the universe. 3. So we have a deductive argument: 1) If God does not exist, the incredible applicability of mathematics is just a coincidence 2) The incredible applicability of mathematics is not just a coincidence Conclusion: God exists. 4. Kalam has nothing to do with this argument, but he is not the God of emptiness either, but a deductive syllogism that establishes the existence of the first cause and a conceptual analysis of some of its properties. 5. The fine-tuning argument is also a deductive argument and not a God of the Void. 6. Miracles do not mean that the universe is inconsistent, the universe can only be inconsistent if it violates the axiom of non-contradiction, which miracles do not do, a miracle is just an intervention in the natural world.
@@kenandzafic3948 In what way is is he doing anything other than using a god of the gaps argument. You may think it's overused but it seems entirety relevant. He hasn't demonstrated mathematics is the result of a god - he merely asserts it. He also does this with Kalam and fine-tuning. How would you know what a universe without a god would look like? If the Christian god exists then the idea of "without god" is nonsensical since god is a necessary being. There can be no "without god". If, however, there is no god, then what we see is a universe without god and it's not chaotic in the way you describe. Under atheism, the only conclusion is "you haven't demonstrated that any of this is due to a god". No I haven't read his book. I responded to a video. I wasn't aware tgat watching a video obligated me to read a book. He didn't say his video is worthless if you don't read his book so I'm responding to what he put out here.
@@philb4462 1. This is a form of the God of the Gap argument: I don't know how this happened, so God did it. Now look at these arguments: 1) If the universe began to exist, the universe has a cause 2) The universe began to exist Conclusion: The universe has a cause 1) Fine-tuning can be the result of chance, physical necessity, and intelligent design 2) Fine tuning is not the result of chance and physical necessity Conclusion: Fine-tuning is the result of design 1) If god does not exist the incredible applicability of mathematics to the real world is a coincidence 2) The incredible applicability of mathematics to the real world is no accident Conclusion: God exists Therefore, all arguments are deductive, which means that the conclusion that God exists follows by rational deduction from the premises; nowhere did it say i don't know how this happened so god did it so don't repeat the god of the void nonsense (which is just an outdated atheistic cliché like i said). 2. This is just a straw man fallacy because we can very easily know what the universe would look like without God, it would be just chaos, or we would only have primitive mathematics like arithmetic, I guess you know how to count and then realize that the more complex the structure the less probable, god is metaphysically necessary, but equally necessary beings can be metaphysically impossible, and this argument confirms that god is metaphysically possible.
@@philb4462 3. Yes, I proved it, but you are just pretending to be stupid because I presented this argument deductively, and the only way to refute a deductive argument is to refute some of its premises, which you did not do. 4. Well, of course you haven't read it, if you did you wouldn't be banging nonsense on the comments and it's a chapter and not a book, and the video is not worthless, this is a logical error and a slippery slope because the video only needs to introduce the argument like his other animated videos.
@@kenandzafic3948 In your second and third arguments your second premise is an undemonstrated claim and therefore you conclusions do not follow from your premises. Your claim that the universe would be chaotic without god has not been demonstrated. How could you possibly know anyway? If you think god created everything and nothing would exist without god, how could there be anything to be in chaos without god? How did the things that are in chaos come about without god if a god is required to create things? If you are saying that, for example, the gravitational constant would no longer be a constant and would constantly change without god, what would act upon it to cause it to change? It's all god of the gaps... We don't know why the universe came into being, therefore god. We don't know why the universal constants have the values they have, therefore god. We don't know how maths has come to describe the universe so well, therefore god. You really haven't done anything more profound than that.
I think the entire argument can be summed up by the first premise at 4:30: "If God does not exist, then the applicability of mathematics is just a happy coincidence". --- Is that really true? Couldn't there be other reasons that this particular youtube video has just not considered. Perhaps mathematics is just the natural way universes run themselves, and we have simply evolved to use reason --- sufficient to infer the laws of mathematics. It seems that this first premise is therefore probably not true. Besides, even if there is a God, surely a God could choose to make a non-mathematical universe? So why did God choose to make a universe that was very mathematical, but not so complicated that we couldn't understand it (if indeed we can understand it at its most fundamental)? It doesn't seem like there's an answer to that, so are theists really in a better position? This argument makes no sense at all when examined closely. --- Let us consider adding a new extremely plausible additional premise: 1b. Even if there was a God, it is still happy coincidence that God chose the applicability of mathematics (since He could easily have had it lots of other ways). Now the argument is infeasible meaning that one of the premises needs to go, but we have no idea which. --- One more point: The argument was put forward by Wigner, who remained atheist. If this argument, which on the face of it looks weak (unsound first premise), didn't convince Wigner, why should it convince us?
"So why did God choose to make a universe that was very mathematical, but not so complicated that we couldn't understand it (if indeed we can understand it at its most fundamental)?" Well, the math done on architectural structures vary from basic to complex, so we could just be slowly figuring out the complexity of our infinite universe. Also, if God chose mathematics, it's probably less coincidence and more by intentional design. Other then these qualms, I think your argument holds up. There are better arguments for God's existence, but this video seems to mix up aesthetics and physics. Maybe William Lane Craig has a stronger argument on his website for mathematics proving God. I haven't checked it out yet so I can't confirm.
@@gctcauto Is Mathematical system representing relations? The first math was putting stick (I) on the ground and seeing the relationship of them, can you see them? : I I I I Clearly even a child can rearrange them differently. For instance like this: II II Oh hey! Now that arrangement have new relationships - they appear from far away not as four sticks but as two. Wonder if I can do the same with one new stick on the ground: II III Nope ... But if I just snap the new stick in the middle ... IIi IIi Yep. These relations are DISCOVERED by humans through observations. By arranging visually only sticks you can EXPLORE them. The alien on the planet x will do the same - and will DISCOVER the same results. What is invented is the Mathematical symbols - to represent these relations. These relations are repetitive in nature however, so Mathematics fundamentaly is discovered, not invented.
@@LyubomirIko This REQUIRES intelligent beings to exist to create the relationships. Sticks are just sticks amd have no natural inherent relationship to each other.
@@gctcauto well you was in need of a stone age approach to understand that math is Universal discovery and that aliens too will come to the same discovery if are intelligent enough. Don't blame me that you don't understand this, that's on you buddy.
It's not a coincidence that maths describes the world. It was designed for that purpose. We made maths to describe the world. Being amazed that it works so perfectly is like being amazed that a ship floats
@@JM-19-86 calculus was invented to explain the motion of planets. Maths was made to describe the world. 1+1=2. That was done for trade. Multiplication and division were invented to save ourselves time. Just like algebra to find out unknown numbers
It is amazing that ships float. That we have so many elements out of a primitive start. That some material can sail on others. That we are in the middle of nowhere and we can actually sail to each other. That life exists in oceans and land in so much variety. Shows God’s masterful creativity.
I don't think the second premise of the argument is sound, or at least the way it is expressed is not correct. Because, how to explain a happy coincidence without mathematics? Coincidence just points to something we don´t have enough information to explain, we are trying to explain something here.
Whatever belief this guy has, I respect it. I'm a Muslim and really like this video. It's just doesn't make sense to me when atheists tell me that all these design we found on the universe is a mere coincidence. Believing in a creator is far more logical than believing the perfect universe comes from none.
@@silentghost751 lol .. please show me proof of jesus, an afterlife, anything youve got :) prove to me that the earth is flat and stable and the sun orbits it .. prove half the old testament isnt stolen from the stories of osiris or the epic of gilgamesh .. prove jesus own ideas are in NO WAY stolen from socrates (famously executed for doubting athena and zeus might be real, amongst other "crimes" lol .. that jesus did NOT steal his ethical ideas from an atheist .. prove that one lol) .. prove there was a planetwide flood .. prove all animals and humans on the planet are descended from single original pairs .. prove all the aussie animals were at one point taken to iraq or somewhere, put on a boat that held them for 40 days, then deposited back in Oz after the floodwaters receded, by some bronze age desert dwellers who didnt even know Oz existed lol .. prove a WOODEN BOAT built by a single family in what I presume is a few months, could handle all known land animals, which is over 30 million species .. and ofc you need TWICE that because youve a boy and girl of each one .. prove it also held food for 60 million animals for 40 days LOL .. prove at any point was there enough wood even available on earth to build this monstrous nautical death star of a vehicle lol .. prove a loving god that designed a hell of infinite pain for infinite time is somehow a sane being worthy of any form of worship, rather than being the foundation of an ethical necessity to join Lucifer and the rebels .. PS also prove Lucifer is real too, ofc lol
@@markhill3858 all scholars agee Jesus is real. There's plenty of NDEs too. The Bible said the earth was a sphere. You should see the differences between the Bible and all the others. Some believe the flood to be a lesson, rather than an historical event. God made everything out of love, but our sinful nature ruined it
Without referring to any Religious Book and any biases that anyone may have, which God is the Creator ? The argument in-and-of-itself does not get you to Yahweh. The argument in-and-of-itself does not get you to Jesus.
@@ChannelPabilona ---- Historical Arguments are Terrible. They only convince people who want to be convinced. I went to Wallsend High School and came top of the year in Math. That is Historically True. Do you believe it ?
@@TheMirabillis how else would you come to the conclusion of which religion is right? Isn't looking at the origins/foundation of the religion important?
Not seeing to the sun and only looking to skies and telling skies give us light and there is no sun does not undo the fact that there is sun and is covered to y due to Ur ignorance
@Ogutu-TishOg M well. God gave wisdom and knowledge to king Solomon and other people as well. These people have basically share wisdom and knowledge from god to others. If you read the book of Solomon, Solomon had Been given wisdom and knowledge of music, and science and much more. People around the world came to visit him for his knowledge and wisdom
I wish this video was around when I was in Grade school and High School - I strongly believe it would have made me more interested and pay more attention in my Math classes.
This is nonsense. Math is a system humans have created based on our observations to explain patterns. The idea that one object placed next to another object, thus making 2 objects, is not a miracle nor does it imply any god was required for this, let alone a specific christian god. Your mist understanding of the concept of mathematics does not automatically make your irrational god claim somehow true.
I don't understand this argument. Surely maths is constructed around physics by humans in order to understand it. Like we count how many eggs are in a basket and give it an abstract value (say 12) . But it isn't a miracle that the number 12 perfectly describes the number of eggs. We just ascribe different abstract values to the quantities we visually perceive and end up with a system of numbers. Perhaps I am missing something?
Oppy refuted this argument in his discussion with Craig. It collapses into an unexplained brute contingency or a "happy coincidence" which was the exact same criticism the theist was making of the naturalist. The theist's explanation is no better.
I'm no expert in any of this, but just to assume you are somewhat correct (I suspect Craig might have a different perspective)... it is possible we can run into a linguistic wall that seems like it results in an "unexplained brute contingency". However, the limitation is due to language constraints when attempting to be hyperprecise. It is somewhat like the difference between the quantum world and the macroscopic world. If you step back just a hair, the "happy coincidence" is a potential answer indeed, but certainly unsatisfying if that is the only explanation for the myriads of similar such fine-tuned conditions. If, in fact, there is a Mind behind it all, there are not just puzzle pieces placed together, but a meaningful picture that emerges. One might respond with the analogy of the mountain climber when asked why she does so says 'because it is there." What a horribly unsatisfying retort. The climber does so because of the satisfaction that results from the success of the achievement. Now, you can probe asking about those feelings and eventually get down to dopamine, synapses, atoms, etc. and eventually get to quarks and quantum entanglement possibly. But the "Why?" will not be found down at that level - although I admit it will likely be involved. The "Why" will be found at the level of the person. Why does that person's mind think differently than someone else who is content with streams meandering through a valley? Mathematics is "beautiful" only if there is a meaning to the word "beautiful". If it is beautiful, it can only be if there is a mind to perceive it as such. I'm glad to appreciate that there is both beauty and mathematics and their entanglement is the product of a Mind to which I also can relate as a creature.
@@msvvero There is still no explanation at the bottom for _why_ God chose to make _this_ universe with _these_ fine tuned constants as opposed to _another_ universe with different constants. It still ends up being a "happy coincidence" in the end.
@@resurrectionnerd Very good point. I agree. Yet, if that "happy coincidence" is the result of a Mind making a decision, I still want to relate more to the Mind than merely make use of the coincidence.
@@msvvero I just want to add that Dr.Craig did respond to that exact point in his question of the week 2 weeks ago. www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/explaining-the-applicability-of-mathematics
@@Alarcahu --- The argument is pointless if it cannot logically get you to you to Jesus. At the end of the day, the Christian Theist has to make an argument for Christian Theism and a defence for Christian Theism. William Lane Craig’s argument just does not accomplish this. At some point the Christian has make the leap of faith from Arguments to the pages of the Bible. In the end it all comes down to faith. You guys want to believe. Ok, but don’t try and pretend you have arguments that lead you straight to Jesus because none of you guys have got any.
this is getting ridiculous. mathematics has nothing to do with the existence of god. (for religious and non-religious people alike out there reading this, dont shy away from this. read on. im sorry if it makes you uncomfortable but religion needs to stop being such a touchy subject. feel that uncomfortable feeling and explore it. actually process what im saying and THINK). why do we give our amazing achievements to a big bearded man in the sky? mathematics works because it is a language humans have created as a way of understanding the universe as a whole. because the universe works the way it does, we can create labels that help us understand WHY. that is what the entire field of science is - finding the WHY of things and that is beautiful. the entire concept of a god existing is a way for us to feel satisfied. YOU want to be satisfied with knowing why we exist because the thought of NOT knowing scares you. ever since we as a species came about we wanted to know where we came from, and why we're here. whats the purpose of life? its OK to not know. its OK to let there be mystery. that is why we have to explore!! that is why we have to continue our scientific discoveries. notice how religions across the board stop you from questioning? the answer to 99% of questions raised like "well where does GOD come from? what was before god?" all get bullshit answers like "god is always and forever" and "god works in mysterious ways." how can you be satisfied with that? why does THAT satisfy you? people belonging and adding to the scientific community have worked hard, tirelessly to find where we come from and bringing up EXTREMELY logical points. the observations we have made that can explain the beginning of the universe and the theory of life are INCREDIBLE feats of human achievement and yet people continue to brush all this off and give credit to a magical man they have no proof of existing. in the end, i understand why religion began. it was a way for us to put our ever-worrying minds at ease with the thought of a creator, a solidified purpose. but that was back then, now we have the proper tools to see this isn't true. so its time to move on and wake up. there is "believing in god" and "believing in miracles." there is not "believing in science." you do not believe, you trust. you explore you understand. you DO NOT (like this video entails) assume that anything that has yet to be discovered automatically gets filled in with "magic." the understanding of science and math is beautiful, and i implore anyone reading this, dont waste your time, soak up knowledge, multiply your understanding, and follow the rest of us on this exciting ride. we are only on this planet for so long, why not learn as much of its beautiful inner-workings as you can before its too late?
но чисто материалистский взгляд на мир имеет огромное количество вещей, которые не могут быть никак объяснены. вы тоже в своем тексте отталкиваетесь от предположений. каждый в какой то мере отталкивается от предположений
Existence of God does NOT solve anything. Because it's not a valid answer for human understanding. Science wants to find objective truth, if it doesn't find one, we don't know it "yet". => no objective truth available? Put God in there! 10 out of 10 situations work! No more questions needed.
I used to be an agnostic. Why would I believe in God, I'm poor, my life sucks. People are starving, yatta. I went to college and got my degree in science. During my journey through calculus and physics... and later in engineering... It became clear that math, the math we are exposed to, is totally based an a set of LAWS and also DEFINITIONS and also many THEORIES. In order to go forward and pass a class, say in physics, you are asked to have faith in the theories in order to further the discussion under which all theoretical faith is the foundation. To me, Math is a description, it's a model. Models work, as long as the theory behind it is real. If you ask me now, "Does God exist?", I'd answer, "You bet your ass God exists. We are mere infants and the corporations of the world are destroying Mother". Let's talk about a line. By definition, it does not exist. A circle, doe not exist either. These are concepts and cannot be created by DEFINITION. You cannot make exact measurements. You cannot even make exact duplicate measurements, by definition of a line. Another question, PI. Circumference divided by twice the radius? If you cannot measure a radius, nor does a circle exist outside of theory, then you cannot measure the circumference either. PI, is purely imaginary, a close approximation that could not even be close enough. Math is useful, indeed, for engineering. But math is not worthy of Nature nor God.
4:25 Premise one - False dichotomy fallacy, argument from ignorance fallacy. Premise 2 - Evidence required that it is not an coincidence that laws of nature (including maths) exists the way they are.
Except that Math is not a law of nature. It is one of many languages used to describe the laws of nature. It has been invented rather than discovered which is in contrast to the laws of nature itself.
Wigner was wrong to be astonished, if he was. As Galileo put it, the book of the universe is written in the language of math. Math is just a language we find useful to describe what is. Math has no causal power, as was said in the video. Thus, it is merely a description of what we observe. We have poets and philosophers such as Russel; his quote shown at the head of Wigner's article is beautiful prose, who can compose sublime prose and poetry describing the world around us. Mathematicians, sometimes, write proofs that have sublime aesthetic form and value. Sometimes mathematicians write ugly equations as do poor poets write ugly poems. Why be amazed and dumbfounded when a beautiful proof is composed? The universe exists as it is, whether humans find it beautiful or not. Better explanations for its structure and origin exist than just, "God did it that way because he liked it like that."
1. First Wigner was not wrong and your attempt at an answer only confirms that because you obviously never read his article on this issue given the criticism you give. 2. The universe could not be described by mathematics if it did not have a mathematical structure, why is the universe not just chaos, or why does it not have some primitive mathematical structure that can only be described by the simplest arithmetic; the answer to theism is the lottery, that is, according to atheistic logic, we should not be surprised when something works well even though it is extremely unlikely. 3. Aesthetics have nothing to do with this argument (another indicator of how much you don't understand the argument)
Orbital Dew: Misquotes Galileo, even though he, presumably, JUST HEARD the statement he misquoted; then, misspells 'proceeds'; then, runs his "mouth" about someone-else's "understanding" of a statement that he himself has just misquoted; then, commits the same misquotation AGAIN. 😏😉😜
@QuantumRat2005 I don't think that the Atomized Satellite is CAPABLE of learning math to that degree. And, of course, Misty's cranial-insufficiencies aren't surprising: The VAST MAJORITY of self-identifying "atheists" that one encounters are just ill-informed, pseudo-intellectual science fan- boys/girls with emotional-health issues (anger-issues; daddy-issues; autism-spectrum disorders; delusions of persecution.....). 😉😜
Galatians 1: 6 I am astonished that you have so quickly turned away from the One Who called you into the love of Messiah, to another message;7 Not that there is any other glad tidings, just that there are some who trouble you, and are trying to pervert the message of the Messiah.8 But even if we, or a malak from heaven, should preach a +message other than what we preached to you: May he be accursed!9 As we have already said, so I now say again: If any man preaches any message to you contrary to or different from what you have received from us: May he be accursed!10 So now, who am I trying to please man, or Father YAHweh? Do I seek to be a man-pleaser? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of the Messiah! 11 But I point out to you, brothers, that the message preached by me is not something any man invented.12 For I neither received it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Father YAHweh's Resurrected Son. May Father YAHweh bless your understanding.
@@PappyGunn Hey Pappy. You must have been misinformed. Your argument goes like this: 1. H ∈ N 2. H ∈ V 3. V ⊂ N (1, 2) That's invalid. (3) doesn't follow from (1) and (2). Just because Hitler is an element of both Nazis and vegetarians doesn't mean that vegetarians are a subset of Nazis. There could still be other vegetarians that aren't Nazis, even though Hitler is both. On the other hand, the video's argument goes like this (G = God exists; MHC = mathematics is a happy coincidence): 1. ¬G → MHC 2. ¬MHC 3. ¬¬G (1, 2) 4. G (3) The video's argument is valid. (3) follows from (1) and (2) because of modus tollens. (4) follows from (3) because of a double negative. The video just abbreviates the syllogism by removing (3), which is perfectly fine since (4) still eventually follows from (1) and (2).
@@PappyGunn Yea - that is not how this argument works at all. The argument is absolutely 100% logically valid. The question is whether the 2 premises are more likely true than false.
You say that naturalists do not have a reasonable explanation when you do not have a reasonable explanation either. You are jumping to conclusions on certain mathematical hypotheticals that don’t truly exist being evidence for God? Then, you assume that the universe must have a design because you simply dislike the other possibility. You have a lot of claims in this video that are not backed up when it comes to the existence of God.
Bobsheaux - yeah, I’m with you I that. It just does not sit well with me. There are plenty of good arguments for the existence of God, but this is not one of them.
Well mathematics is at its roots a way of predicting events. You can only predict events, however, if they follow a structured pattern. Mathematics essentially describes those patterns so that we as humans can make use of them. There is no naturalistic reason why these “patterns” such as the law of gravity, the general theory of relativity, and so on would ever be in place. How can a series of chemical reactions result in the seemingly designed and structured natural laws we see. Why doesn’t everything just happen at random, but rather in a predictable manner? Someone (God) had to have put these patterns in place for us to realize. In summary, mathematics would not be possible without a God to create the laws that mathematics describes.
Rick in Texas I wish I would see at least one good argument for god’s existence! All I see is “it is easier than actually searching for answers therefore god” or “it is scary otherwise therefore god” or “I want there to be an afterlife and an intrinsic meaning for my existence therefore god”. So pathetic...
Chris Mahn Why do you attribute “will” to the reason of everything being in order? Why do you ask “someone” instead of “something”? Why do you think it was intentionally done and not “just so happened”? There is no “order” in quantum physics for example - most of things “just happen” there - so by your logic nobody created the particles as they act too chaotically!
Looks like a good dose of Adobe After Effects/Photoshop/illustrator and for the 3D elements probably Cinema 4d (but could be Maya or Lightwave or 3D Studio MAX)
This video is really biased and filled with little incorrect assumptions. 1) Why should a omnipotent and omniscient being that created the universe according to his plan be a more reasonable answer than saying that only what we can see scientifically exist? 2) The complex numbers are used in varius branch of physics, like i in quantum mechanics. 3) The "mathematical" argument is one gigantic flaw: mathematics applies to our physics because we built those models using mathematics. It's not a coincidence, it's that we created mathematics designing in our minds an ideal universe (basing it to our observations) and than used it to describe the real one using physics.
There is so much wrong here I don't know where to start. 1. Why God is better explained, because coincidence is the only alternative to theism and it obviously doesn't work. 2. Complex numbers apply to the real world, Craig doesn't deny that. 3. This is a fictionalist view of mathematics that is not supported by almost any philosopher, however it obviously does not work, if the universe was just chaos you could not describe it mathematically, if it had a primitive mathematical structure you could describe it perhaps with some primitive mathematics like arithmetic but no and with an elegant as we describe why the universe has such an incredible mathematical structure, the answer to atheism is only coincidence.
It doesn't beg the question because there's a reason to think it is more plausibly true than its negation, namely the fact that the applicability of mathematics by chance alone is so improbable as to be irrational to affirm. - RF Admin
As an agnostic, I admit that the "unreasonable effectivness of mathematics" is what has led to so many modern mathematicians becoming neo-platonists. That is to say, they believe abstract entities exist concretely. You also bring up Bertrand Russell, who's life work in mathematical logic was intended to solve this problem by grounding mathematics in logic. Otherwise known as Logicism. However, you fail to mention why Russell's project failed. Because Gödel, in his two incompleteness theorems, proved that mathematical systems are inherently limited in the following ways: 1. For any consistent formal system, there are mathematical statments in the system that cannot be proven nor disproven from within the system itself. 2. For any formal system, the consistency of the system (lack of logical contradictions) cannot be proven from within the system. This profoundly limits mathematical systems. It's my belief that, had Russell actually proven Logicism, you would have a much stronger argument for the existence of God. Because mathematics has within it infinitely contradictory system, like euclidian and hyperbolic geometries to name one example. And as Gödel showed, none of the mathematical systems, like the many set theories modern mathematicians use, can be both complete and consistent. So none of which seem to be the perfect system upon which God based the universe. It is unlikely God created infinite systems, each contradicting one another, and based the universe of that. Some, like Russell, believe Logic is the perfect system, but the fact that mathematics is not one thing, that it contains within it infinite logically contradictory systems, each containing statments which cannot be proved or disproved within them, seems to prove just about the as difinitively as possible that mathematics is not the perfect system you make it out to be.
If you want a concrete example of a problem in mathematics that cannot be proven or disproven, look up the "Continuum Hypothesis" which Gödel first proven (indipendent of the incompletness theorems) that the negation of the hypothesis cannot be proven true in 1940. But then in 1963 it was proved by Paul Cohen that the hypothesis cannot be proven true either. Thus the Continuum Hypothesis cannot be proven true or false in standard set theory, so it is called "independent", exemplifying Gödels first incompleteness theorem.
@BLACK LIVES AGAINST GAYS As I said, my point is that Mathematics is not one thing. It is many, many different systems, each with axioms that contradict other mathematical systems, each, if consistent, having statements unable to be either proven or disproven, and each unable to prove their own consistency. Mathematics is not the system upon which God based creation because it is very much not one thing.
@Roof Korean If all you guys have to add to the discussion is "if it isn't "one thing" then why is it called by one name?" then we have nothing further to discuss.
In a similar conversation, I made the following comments (slightly edited)- Dr. Robert Kuhn in his ‘Closer to Truth’ interviews has done a lot of fascinating work on this topic, i.e., math and reality. One is his interview of Dr. Hossenfelder (see th-cam.com/video/QUWbe5KGaQY/w-d-xo.html). I admire Dr. Hossenfelder's candor in admitting that she neither asks nor likes the 'why?' questions that Dr. Kuhn raises. Obviously, because it leads to a terrain that's outside of science proper-an area where, as a scientist, she feels she’s no longer competent to say anything that would be of any real weight. Kuhn has asked this question to top mathematicians and theoretical physicists, apparently not getting satisfactory answers. But perhaps he should go back to Wigner and take seriously his language. Wigner describes this "unreasonableness" as a "miracle" and as a "gift" that we should simply be thankful for. These terms are pregnant with metaphysical-even theological!-implications. When putting the question to Edward Witten (multi-awarded theoretical physicist and mathematician), he said something that, IMO, should be taken with careful thought; he said it's "uncanny" because "it's as if the universe has been created by a mathematician.” Dr. Kuhn responded with a nervous laugh and said, "that goes into a whole other area"-an area outside the empirical and into metaphysics and theology, an area that he explores but doesn't really like. (See Edward Witten - Why the ‘Unreasonable Effectiveness’ of Mathematics, starting at 1m th-cam.com/video/1-Zl9o7I4Fo/w-d-xo.html) But like Einstein's 'superior reasoning power' as behind the beauty and comprehensibility of the cosmos, the idea that a Mind is the source of the beauty of the cosmos is a very rational inference based on what is empirically observed. As agnostic Sir Fred Hoyle grudgingly said that a "common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature." Some ancient Greek thinkers posited the Logos, the Universal Reason that governed the order and structure of the cosmos. In Christian thought, John states that this Logos is the Word (creative wisdom and power) of God instantiated and incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ (see John 1:1-14). Though neither a complete nor perfect explanation, a mathematical Mind as the source of the “miracle” of the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" (Wigner’s very words) makes more sense and has more explanatory power than either a brute fact assertion that it's just the way it is and that there's no reason for it, or attributing it as a mere coincidence. But one could always reject mathematical realism and ontologically deny any objective reality to math, and that math is simply a creation of our minds and not something we discover out there in nature. But then many would disagree. Authorities such as Penrose, Tegmark, et. al. argue that there’s an entire Platonic world filled with mathematical objects that we discover (although we invent the language we use to describe what we discover). Another is Kuhn’s interview of Mlodinov (see th-cam.com/video/uqGbn4b3LPM/w-d-xo.html). And wow, Mlodinov simply echoes Wigner himself and understands the issues as Wigner himself did. Hence this unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is MIRACULOUS, and as Wigner added, a GIFT we should all be thankful for. But then these descriptions cry out for an explanation, at least offer a reasonable inference. So, brute fact-no reason? Coincidence (what a jackpot!)? Multiverse (extravagant violation of the law of parsimony!)? Or inferring a single, simple mathematical MIND doing the math behind the universe (Einstein's 'superior reasoning power')-or as Mlodinov said at the end of the clip, God. Now that's a pretty rational inference. Only those committed to the ideology of reductive naturalism will find that unacceptable, not on the basis of the data but on dogma.
I find it really interesting people can make the comment that math is a language we use to describe things we discover. Yet at the same time, scientist use and rely on math to make many calculations including launching a rocket, predicting the weather, predicting the location of planets. Feels like there's a disconnect of understanding there.
@@JenYangLim I'm not sure I understand your point but it seems you're making a distinction without a difference. If you were to say " scientists use and rely on language to make many calculations...." would that change the reality in any way? Math is a universal language that simplifies and makes accurate the communication of the laws of physics, chemistry, finance etc for the use of it's practitioners. Similarly musical notation simplifies the communication of key, tone, note, beat and measure for the use of musicians. In each realm there is remarkable congruence between the language used and the thing described - if the grammar and spelling is correct.
@@gordonepema722 I just making an observation where few people on here are saying that Math is just a language used to describe what we understand our known universe. As a statistician, I know that math can be used to accurately predict many events and thus is not merely a language used to understand what we have. But there are actual proper Laws governing such things. Thus Einstein's observation of there being a creator. It is too accurate to say it is by sheer coincidence.
@@JenYangLim "I know that math can be used to accurately predict many events and thus is not merely a language used to understand what we have" Can you not do the same thing with a natural language?
Mathematics isn't really the study of numbers and equations, it's a study of the rules that govern them, and ultimately about the conclusions of conditional logic with respect to quantifiable objects. The reason why math models nature so well is ultimately because the universe respects the principle of causality, and why that's the case is where we ought to turn our attention to our amazing creator.
One question I had though is that, aren't numbers supposed to be neccessary? Even if there is a Platonic realm of abstract objects, wouldn't those objects neccessarily have to exist in all possible worlds, including ours? So it seems that as long as math neccessarily exists, every physical world has to have applicable mathematics, otherwise they wouldn't be neccessary
not really. There is nothing in mathematics which talks about actual existence of the frameworks we work in. We at most prove whether within these frameworks certain structures exists -> and given we never prove the actual existence of the frameworks, these existence proofs are at best about ‘relative existence‘.
Ugh, mathematics is used to describe reality because it was discovered that reality was describable as such. Realizing you can describe something a certain way isn't a miracle, it's just you coming to understand the universe a bit better. Unless you're saying it's a miracle that you noticed something about the world around you... oof. That said, even IF this universe in which we all reside was indeed created by a "god", you still have no proof it was YOUR god, let alone any proof of ANY god.
@@1977Jackofalltrades No mind behind it all was demonstrated. Only the presumption that their is one was asserted without evidence to support the claim. Math is simply what humans invented and use to describe what we observe. As we observe new things we add to math to describe it as needed. A god has nothing to do with it.
@@1977Jackofalltrades No one has ever demonstrated that a mind is anything other than a collection of complex electrochemical processes taking place in a living brain. Minds didn't objectively exist until brains evolved enough complexity to produce them. The reason that we do not answer the "why" questions is because "why" questions presuppose agency and no agency is objectively evident. The "logical" argument offered here boils down to "God is required therefore God exists." This is a very tight circle.
@Captain James T. Kirk I don't have anything to disprove. You have to present evidence to support your claim that God exists for me to be able to examine said evidence and determine if it supports it or not. By your own admission here you know you have no evidence and are just making the claim baselessly. Thus their is nothing to disprove. Make-believe isn't reality.
@Captain James T. Kirk Cannot disprove him, but can disprove the Bible that points to him, which is a piece of evidence theist actively point to in most cases. There are multiple fields of science that mutually agrees there is no global flood amongst having Chinese empires running longer than when the flood supposedly had happened by Young Earth Creationist claims. Evolution, natural selection, and the diversity of life disproves the flood because it's impossible for so many creatures to remotely survive in such a small space on the ark and then spread into the life it is today. Don't forget to mention how all those creatures got back home, like the koala after leaving the ark IF it was ever possible, since they left 0 migratory tracks.
@freddan6fly well then, did man create mathematics or is mathematics the discovery of natural laws. I believe mathematics existed with and during the creation of the universe, mathematics is a byproduct of intelligence. Therefore there is nontangle intelligence in the universe... Wither we conclude it as God or not. Intelligence exists in the construction of the universe.
Mathematics is a by-product of intelligence yes... The intelligence if man. Math was invented to model patterns discovered in the nature of reality. It's no surprise that math does what it was invented to do. It's also no surprise that the patterns found in the nature of reality are consistent with reality, because reality will always be consistent with reality.
@@sunilrampuria7906 He seems to be very clear that we do not understand why mathematics works as well as it does. If it was because we understand things mathematically, why would he say this?
@@MrDoctorSchultz It was a mistake from his part. Just because he won a Noble prize doesn't mean that everything he says is correct. We do understand why mathematics work the way it works. You may read his "misconstrued" paper and you may also think about the whole thing by yourself instead of just trusting some stranger like me. You may also want to read Nietzsche's essay "On truth and lies in a nonmoral sense".
1 If Zeus does not exist, the applicability of mathematics is just a happy coincidence. 2 But the applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence. 3 Therefore, Zeus exists. 4:38 It does not logically follow that because math works a God exists. It also does not logically follow that math wouldn't work if a God doesn't exist. 1+1=2 regardless of whether a deity exists. If you think otherwise, provide evidence that math couldn't work or wouldn't exist without a God. Math is not logically dependent on a God. If one is to use God as an explanation for why math exists and why it works, one would first need to show that a deity exists and that deity has not only the ability to create math where there wasn't math before but then did in fact create math (is that even logically possible for math to not exist and be created? Where is the evidence for math not existing and then coming into existence? Math is discovered, not created.) Otherwise you are engaging in illogical circular reasoning. We know God exists because math works. And why does math work? Because God exists. And how do we know that God exists? Because math works.
The problem with your syllogism is that it identifies the entity as Zeus. That isn't what these Christians are arguing. They are arguing God exists. So your syllogism doesn't reflect what they are arguing for. Thats how it fails. The argument is that the rationality of mathematics works better under theism then under atheism. It does not prove God exists but just makes math more likely under theism then under atheism. I think what your missing is that they aren't saying that math can or cannot work under theism or a "happy coincidence," but why does math exist at all, and why should it be rational? Your also wrong that one must show a deity exists first. That would be putting the cart before the earth. This argument is made in order to demonstrate that there is a rational reason to believe he does. The whole point of the argument is to do what your claiming needs to be done prior. That is illogical. It doesn't make sense. This is an inductive argument but you are treating it like a deductive argument and that is the flaw in your post David.
@@blusheep2 "The problem with your syllogism is that it identifies the entity as Zeus. That isn't what these Christians are arguing. They are arguing God exists. So your syllogism doesn't reflect what they are arguing for. Thats how it fails." I figure most Christians watching this video will see the above argument as evidence that their particular God exists, not just the general idea of a God. So, I replaced the word "God" with "Zeus" to point out the unreasonableness of saying that it argues for a particular deity. It also shows that this argument for God's existence could be used to support any number of non-existent Gods that Christians don't believe in. If this argument is insufficient to convince someone to believe in Zeus it is also insufficient to convince someone that the Christian God exists. "The argument is that the rationality of mathematics works better under theism then under atheism. It does not prove God exists but just makes math more likely under theism then under atheism." I disagree. God is irrelevant to the question of mathematics. Saying that math is more likely under theism implies that God created numbers and math. That is supposedly why mathematics leads back to God. If one is saying God created math that is also saying that math can be created. However, math is discovered not created out of nothing. Additionally, before the Christian God supposedly created math did He not exist already exist as 1 God in 3 persons according to Christians? That is numbers right there. How could God exist as 1 God in 3 persons and create math later? Logically, God must exist in order to create math. And God existing as an expression of numbers means math must be as old as God, according to those who believe in God. Math cannot be created by a non--existent God. So it is illogical to say that God created math and numbers. Additionally, in order for math to be created it first must not exist, then the act of creation happens, and then math is created. I have no good reason to think that math and numbers never existed and then suddenly came into existence. If someone truly believes that math at one point did not exist, they would need to provide a good argument for that. "Your also wrong that one must show a deity exists first. That would be putting the cart before the earth. This argument is made in order to demonstrate that there is a rational reason to believe he does. The whole point of the argument is to do what your claiming needs to be done prior. That is illogical. It doesn't make sense." Perhaps you misunderstand my argument. I'm critiquing the argument that God created math. In order for God to create math, God would first have to exist. Afterall, math can't be created by a non-existent deity. So God's existence is a sub-premise to the premise "God created math." You need to show that the sub-premise "God exists" is true before you can then say that not only does God exist he also has the ability to create math where there was none before. Not only is capable of it but did in fact do it. "This is an inductive argument but you are treating it like a deductive argument and that is the flaw in your post David." I'm aware that this is a inductive argument but that's no reason to not point out the logical errors. I give you credit that you showed me that perhaps I did not word my previous post in a way that is clear. I hope that this post offers more clarity on what I was trying to say in my previous post. Have a good day.
If you ask me "what is 25695378x367874334?", I would say that I didn't know. If you were to say "I think it is 4" I would say that didn't make sense. Your response would be "well at least I have an answer" Just because you have an answer, while the opponent doesn't, doesn't mean your answer is right
@@randyshephard8257 Just because you're closer to being right doesn't mean you are correct. If Jonathan then guessed 964482964644785 as a possibility to refute 4 he is now closer to an actual answer, it's wrong, but closer. Taking more time to learn it would yield a more accurate answer but theist stay on the same answer 'god did it' or '4' which by a scientific standards isn't a strong argument.
@@johnemmanuel1426 No, we didn't "make" gravity. Don't be asinine. We discovered the effect we call gravity - and then we made the law of gravity to describe said effect. Do not mistake the map (the law) for the place (the effect). 1+1=2 is entirely made up by us. We defined what "1" means, then what "2" means, then we defined what "+" means and finally what "=" means. Like I said, laws(and maths) are just descriptions of relationships in reality. You do understand that scientific laws are descriptive, not proscriptive, right?
@@Steelmage99 we didn’t make any laws or mathematical actions. We DISCOVERED THEM. The symbols were made up by us yes, but the symbols are not math. Are you really telling me that before we existed, when 1 object and another 1 object came together, they didn’t make 2 objects? Scientific laws are discovered as well, they were already here before we existed. I’m not talking about the map itself as portrayed in your analogy rather I’m talking about what the map is saying.
@@johnemmanuel1426 "we didn’t make any laws or mathematical actions." Yes, we did. You're still mistaking the map for the place. "We DISCOVERED THEM." No, we discovered that which the laws describe. You're still mistaking the map for the place. " Scientific laws are discovered as well, they were already here before we existed." No, what the laws _describe_ was already here. You're still mistaking the map for the place. "I’m not talking about the map itself as portrayed in your analogy rather I’m talking about what the map is saying." That's the same thing. The difference is between the map and what the map describes.
@@Steelmage99 You are talking about the words itself and not what it describes. I’m talking about what the words describe and not the words itself. I’m talking about the place and not the map. When I say Disney World, I’m not talking about the word “Disney World”, I’m talking about the place Disney World. Thats the analogy.
@@gctcauto thing is through the mathematics/law to describe the universe, they are able to predict many things that were previously unknown. Ie, location of nepture, theory of relativity, expansion of the universe and so on. So its not only a descriptive language.
Wow what a profound misunderstanding of what Mathematics is. Math is a human invention to describe our natural world. So surprise surprise when it describes the natural world. If it does not describe our natural world we revise the math. This whole argument of the video.... if you have 2 oranges on a table and add 2 more... you have 4 oranges.... MUST BE GOD!!!! This must be the most lazy scholarship I have seen! Christian Apologists are really gasping for air!
While I do agree that the naturalist position has been very much simplified, or even misrepresented, what you write is just nonsensical. Firstly, the idea that mathematics has been invented to describe the natural world is a half truth at best. While it is true that things like diff geo very much derive from an idealisation of reality, that just isn’t true for many other things in mathematics. Secondly, the idea that mathematics is „revised“ is beyond stupid. Mathematics is *proven*. It literally can not be revised, *especially* not through observation. Do you have any idea what mathematics even is? Thirdly, very often mathematics *precedes* physics. Functional analysis was developed to study partial differential equations, now it is used to describe QM. Just like Relativity relied on notions of non-Euclidean geometry. This should tell you that the naturalist has to answer FAR harder questions and that your answer is no answer to the problem at all.
@@jonassattler4489 Firstly, mathematic fields are interconnected : you may think that some points are not relevant regarding the description of reality, but it does indirectly. Vectorial spaces of infinite dimension, for example, are useful when it comes to functional analysis, as they provide the right frame to solve some problems. Even if they are not "real", they had been defined so that they can be used to ultimately solve real world problems. Secondly, the mathematics is as proven as it is invented / revised. Mathematics are not about finding the right answer, but finding the right question. Take Newton and Leibniz for example : they invented the derivative, sort of. Thing is, the definition they proposed was not rigorous at all. Leibniz defined the dx as the smallest strictly positive real number, without even proving its existence. Though such a definition may be meaningful in a different mathematical field, the definition of the real set does not allow that. Cauchy and Weirstrass came with a different but rigorous way to define the derivative of a function which is used today and rely on limits. While each of these mathematicians had the same intuition on what a derivative could be, they came with two different ways to define it : only Cauchy and Weirstrass reformulated the question in a rigorous way. In other word, mathematical definitions are not arse-pulled : they are the fruit of progressive labor and revision until finding the most practical one. The same goes for the set theory and the category theory : the category theory was meant to replace the set theory as the foundation of mathematics. I have no objection against your third point, although I do not understand where you are getting at.
IoDavide1 Pagans do not believe that Odin is the creator of the universe, he is just another part of it. Please actually learn a bit about the subject before trying to be witty.
Md.Bahroz Babur Ali No you don’t understand, he believes that Odin is the one true God, stop assuming that he believes in the entire Norse pantheon, there is way too much evidence proving that what they supposedly govern is just natural causes.
Mathematics proves god does not exist. God created mathematics so: Let a + b = c, i.e. a = 1, b = 2, c is therefore 3. multiply both sides of this equation by (a - c) which gives (a - c)(a + b) = c(a - c), which results in a² + ab - ac - bc = ac - c², adding bc to both sides gives a² +ab - ac -bc + bc = ac + bc - c² , factorising gives a(a + b - c) = c(a + b - c), terms in the brackets cancel therefore a = c and therefore god is flawed and does not exist. (T.I.C.)
@@JimTaylor42 "Yeah"; except that if we already know the values/proportions of 'a', 'b', and 'c', you DON'T multiply hidden (letter-represented) terms; you DO do the work within the parentheses (simple crunching of numbers) FIRST. The CORRECT representation of YOUR proposal is: a = 1 b = 2 c = 3 'a + b = c' represents '1 + 2 =3'. 'a - c' represents '1 - 3'; which comes out to negative-2. So, '(a - c)(a + b) = c(a - c)' represents '-2(3) = -2(3)'; which comes out to '6 = 6'; which is correct and balanced. "Atheists" are *SO* fulla-"scat"..... 😏😉😜
@@johnharrison6745 What you failed to notice is that in the process I was cancelling out two zeros? i.e. a + b - c = 0. 0 divided by 0 is not allowed or is indeterminate. Did you not notice at the end of my comment (T.I.C.) which stands for Tongue In Cheek.
@@JimTaylor42 No; I didn't fail to notice anything; and, I figured that 'T.I.C.' stood-for 'Trigonometry Invalidates Creationism', or some other "scat" that misotheists like to consume and spew. [most of them are intentionally-ill-informed science-fanboys; makes sense that they'd be mathematician-air-assumers too 😜] Regardless; your "process" was inappropriate/incorrect regarding the information and "terms" given. 😁 [p.s.: anti-theists/New-Atheists are STILL just damaged pseudo-intellectuals; and "humanism" is STILL just pseudo-morality for the emotionally-incontinent, wishful-"thinking" Pollyanna's of the world. (timely reference there; considering all the 'Karen's' and 'Sheila's' one hears-of today)]😁
I am a theist and like philosophical arguments for the existence of God (not that I need them). Nonetheless, you did not prove either premise. That syllogism needs a lot more fleshing out.
Humans invented the Mathematics to describe the universe. There's a reason you will not have advanced mathematics in the Bible. They hadn't been invented yet.
Brandon Shaver But very often mathematics predates the physics which uses the mathematics to describe reality. Why don’t physicists have to invent new mathematics for every new discovery in physics?
@Neil Graham What do you think a universe without order would look like and why would you expect to find yourself in any other universe then the one you’re in?
@@jonassattler4489 That the predictable of physics. We can use our tool of math to make predictions. A predictability that isn't in the Bible. Then Joshua spoke to the Lord on the day when the Lord delivered the Amorites before the children of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel: ‘Sun, stand still [dom] upon Gibeon; and you, Moon, in the valley of Ayalon.’” (Joshua 10:12). Also, the Bible get the movements of the sun and earth wrong. God would have had the stop the earth not the sun.
But why? Mathematics is an epistemological tool for understanding reality. We have discovered mathematical laws painstakingly over millenia. We have a natural need to understand nature and use it for survival. Mathematics is a means of doing so. It reflects reality because we are part of the reality it describes. Equally, one might say language is a proof of god because it can be used to describe reality.
Language doesn’t relate to actual physical processes it just describes them mathematics apply and shockingly in an accurate manner , the question is why abstract thoughts apply accurately to physical tangible entities ? Don’t straw man the argument friend the logical unbiased conclusion is a mind independent from it that’s after you trim down the fallacies along your journey such as the infinite regression but you’ll most certainly climb the mountain of knowledge and a band of theologians will welcome you like it or not my friend like it or not
@@abel3557 why do you say that ? Show me how prove it ? Your an atheist and if your really honest or educated about it you would commit suicide or have a very depressed look into life
@@abel3557 why do you say that ? Show me how prove it ? Your an atheist and if your really honest or educated about it you would commit suicide or have a very depressed look into life
I have no problem with personal choice for theism but this doesn't make sense as an argument. All the supposedly mind-blowing examples listed are really just a repetition of the idea that if you pick up one apple, then another, you hold two apples. Every time you check, they will be two apples. Does anyone think that this proves the existence of God? Don't make us laugh. Three major points to note: 1. This is a clear God-of-the-gaps argument. We don't know "why" mathematics works for physical predictions, hence God makes it so. Transparently obviously, hilariously in fact, fallacious. 2. Asking "why" math applies to the universe implies that it could somehow have been otherwise. Can someone imagine a universe that had no mathematical conformity? You might at first think so, but you would quickly realize that such a universe would not be able to have any properties at all, because the very logic of 2 =/= 1 (a mathematical notion) would become meaningless. If numbers and logic (i.e. mathematics) do not apply to the reality in which we exist, then reality itself holds no conformity to logic itself and hence the existence of properties - any properties at all - are incoherent and meaningless. The very notion of "property" implies a continuous and unchanging persistent state of some aspect of reality, which includes, for example, intrinsic ordinal properties (i.e. "property" itself is singular [i.e. "one"] whereas "properties" is plural [i.e. "any positive integer besides one"]). You just can't get outside of mathematics and logic conceptually and hence to hypothesize counterexamples is meaningless, and anyone who thinks you can is performing sleight of hand, just as surely as anybody who claims a square circle could exist is wrong. If you want to refute this point, then give me a hypothetical conceptual counterexample of any aspect of a universe that could somehow not be governed by mathematics, and explain to me how that is different from our universe. You won't be able to do it because logic binds us all ontologically. This actually applies to God himself as well, which brings us to the third point. 3. The fallacy becomes incredibly obvious towards the end of the video. It's so obvious that it's really not worthy of the likes of a philosopher like WLC. If God could have designed a universe that doesn't conform to mathematics, that means there is an aspect to his own existence that at least, in principle, could not conform to mathematics, and still exist. Which is an absurd suggestion that nobody worth listening to takes seriously. Would you bother to argue with someone who said that rectangular triangles (i.e. a geometric figure of straight lines whose internal angles sum to both 360 and 180 degrees) could exist, either in the abstract or in the physical, even in an alternate universe? You wouldn't bother. But in order for this argument to work it would have to be the case that God could have designed such a universe, because the argument is suggesting that it's not just a "happy coincidence" math applies to our universe (which implies that it could have been some other way). It's not a coincidence all right, but it has nothing to do with some choice an agent makes, because it's logically impossible to get outside of math and logic in the first place. People don't seem to get this simple point. Invoking God as the ultimate and full explanation to explain any singular permanent feature of the universe doesn't work because, ultimately, there are some necessary properties (or property) of reality that God does not control. They are necessary properties of reality and it couldn't be any other way, hence, whatever these properties are, they cannot be ultimately attributed to God, because God's existence is, in fact, attributable to them (not the other way around). Once this is realized it is easy to understand that arguing this way doesn't make any sense because whatever fundamental properties that make something "necessary" can be equally hypothesized to apply to either a world with God or a world without God.
It sounds to me like you've got God boxed in to some pretty specific rules and ideals... "This actually applies to God himself as well, which brings us to the third point." That's new to me. Do you have a peer reviewed article or a scientific journal detailing the findings on this? "because it's logically impossible to get outside of math and logic in the first place." This is not inconsistent with God, because he created them. "because, ultimately, there are some necessary properties (or property) of reality that God does not control." I'm curious on which properties you would claim God does not control or created? "They are necessary properties of reality and it couldn't be any other way, hence, whatever these properties are, they cannot be ultimately attributed to God, because God's existence is, in fact, attributable to them (not the other way around)." Same as the one above. Such as?
I think his argument was that with everything so perfectly in place, like what you said on how logic binds us, there has to be a God out there. Think of what you just said, why does logic have to bind us? Who makes that rule/logic anyways? There's a reason even Einstein believe that there's a God out there due to there being such a logical and mathematical framework that describe our material world. And also the reason the nobel prize winner claim it is a miracle that math applies so perfectly.
@@haroldbecker81 God created logic? God created math? I'm not sure you thought about that. When you say "God created logic" what exactly do you mean? Because when you say that, that implies that there is some aspect outside of reality in which "logic" could not apply. This would imply that in that aspect of reality square circles could exist. Your position is the one philosophers like WLC reject: God cannot operate outside of logic. That's the whole point I'm making. God is necessarily bound by logic so arguing he created it is incoherent. If I've misunderstood your position please clarify.
@@JenYangLim Hi Jen. I tried to address your point in my original comment in point #2 and #3. First, the idea of logical contradiction is fundamental to any human conception of any reality one can imagine. It is not possible for a human to conceive of a reality in which logical contradiction is possible, hence, for humans, such a reality that lacks this logic is impossible and hence it is a necessary property of all possible worlds. Invoking God to explain its existence is therefore fallacious because it exists necessarily. Second, if you think about what this implies, it implies that all possible worlds, including worlds that have God and worlds that do not have God, have logic built into them, and hence it's not even possible in any world for God to be the reason that logic exists, because the existence of God presupposes the applicability of logic. (If logic didn't apply to God's existence because he was "in control" of it, then God could both exist and not exist simultaneously. Not possible.) I don't mean to contradict you, and I don't know why people say things like this about Albert Einstein, but factually, Einstein was a self-described agnostic who did not think a personal God made sense. He denied being an atheist but factually he did not believe in a God and his use of the word was poetic license. This is all well documented. Google: albert-einstein-quotes-on-a-personal-god-249856 (I personally am agnostic as well but think it doesn't make sense to assign human characteristics to the cause of the universe because I don't think there's any evidence to think a disembodied mind is possible.)
@@superdog797 sorry I fail to fully comprehend your argument. Are you trying to say, logic is based on what our mind can comprehend? And we need to believe in things that are logically sensible to us? Is that what you are trying to get at? I don't disagree with what you said on Einstein, what I am trying to get at is that through the understanding of physics and maths, great minds like Einstein find it impossible to comprehend that there's no creator of the universe. Sadly, he didn't believe in a personal and relatable God, which is really a tragedy really. I really enjoy this discussion with you, as you dont give the impression of someone who's just trying to prove his point and disagree, I hope we can continue this discussion amicably and hopefully you will come to a different conclusion from Einstein that there's is a personal God out there who truly loves us. Thus he created the universe.
The premise of the argument is completely flawed. This is the epitome of the puddle argument. Maths perfectly describes nature because we developed math to describe nature. When we find something in nature that doesn't work with the current understanding we change the maths.
You don't get it don't you? Many equations that are made just because are beautiful - end up being used in the real world. The exsamles in the essay are eyeballing real mathematicians, but hey - you knoe better. Ok. Or how we account for the discovery of the Mandelbroad set for instance? Such ideas aren't developed to acount for the nature, just math play - end up reveals that with Fractals you can Resembles accurately structures that appear from micro to cosmological scales.
@@LyubomirIko To your statement that "many equations made just because are beautiful" I suggest you read Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray by Sabine Hossenfelder (a strong critique to your statement). And to your notion of beauty I suggest you read Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman who articulates the two broad systems of thinking and reaching conclusions. Yes I won't deny the beauty in the fractal scale invariance of a Mandelbrot set or of a sunset for that matter. But what about things in this universe that do not evoke those same emotions?
@@LyubomirIko Beauty is in the eye of beholder dude. Also we evolved to find patterns, so finding something like that is just like us finding solace in the pattern of music.
We developed ways of articulating the math that works in nature, we did not create math or the way it works in the physical world. Romans use Roman numerals to articulate numbers, they didn't create numbers
@@dsoma1071 You are missing the point here. Why Math is. Math is not a product of human mind, but a discovery transcribed mentally from the Universe. Fundamentaly this intrinsic logic of relationships and ratios is behind the Universe, it also can be said that the math is the result of how the Universe is. In both cases this relationship in itself shows that the properties of the universe are fully ratio-nal. As Nikola Tesla said: "What one man calls God, another calls the laws of physics." What atheism in nutshell is saying that the laws aren't possible constructed rationally. But intrinsically they are.
This is silly. First of all, you're argument is basically: 1 - The world has patterns. 2 - Mathematics describes patterns. 3 - Hence, Mathematics can describe the patterns in our world. 4 - Also, *G O D* Mathematics is a tool that we use to model systems based on assumptions. There is no intrinsic link between a hypothetical mathematical system and a real one. Look at something as basic as addition: it assumes that 0.5+0.5 = 1, and yet if I add half of a cow to another, identical, half of a cow, I don't get a full cow. I might have better luck approaching the problem with set theory, where {left half of cow} U {right half of cow} = full cow, but this is the problem. We don't sit around saying how terrible mathematics is because (half a cow)+(half a cow) doesn't equal (full cow) when we're trying to get every part of a cow because we know that this system was not made to handle such applications. It doesn't make the same assumptions that our real-world system does. If our world were radically different, but still followed some number of patterns, it could still be described by mathematics. Is it possible for a universe with patterns to exist without a god? If so, how do we tell that universe apart from the one with a god? This argument is definitely very far from a proof. As a second point, Douglas Adams' puddle analogy certainly comes to mind here, especially with people in the comments randomly saying "Life was not a chemical accident." as if that means anything here. In short, here is what we'd be doing in a universe that didn't have patterns (notice the lack of wondering whether a god exists): *̶̢͕̪̽̓̈́̓͗́ͅV̶̢̧̹̳͍͇͎͈̬͈̾͑̈́̌͊͜͝&̴̘̲̝̜̱͓̯͖͑͆̎%̵̲̿̀̽͋̊̐̏^̸̛̬̺̔̉̀̃͛͂̀̀͊͆͐̔͝R̷̨̮̻̙̟͚͉̼̲̣̬̞̺̥͂̽́̉͛̂͗̓̃͜͝͝8̴̨̧̪̙͖̻̥̪̮̥̔̏̂̏̉̋͑̈́̈́̏6̵̩̝͍̪̦͍̮̰̯̿͛̇͋͌̇̆̇̾͐̕5̶̨̥̠̜̘̟͕̦̺͕̌̾̐͋̇̌͊̈́̚ͅͅ7̷͇͙̖͍͂͆̿͒̈́̌̈̈́͝͠Ṟ̸̡͎͙̣͎͇͓̣̫̠͓͖̽̓̈̄̿̉̋͌͆̃̄́̅͝V̴̛̫̭̱̱̖̜̗̱̓͆̃̾̓̒̑͒̏̅́̇̕͠*̵̡̘̞̩͖͇͚̮̞͚̦͚͆͂̽̋̀́̃͆̍̉̈́̎̕͝͝^̸̦̰̝̮̺̞̗͑̋͛̏́̚͝ͅ%̶͙̟̘̞̪̝̞͕͓͔̪̘͚̪̓̒́̑̆͜͝͝7̵̡̧̛̟͙͔̳̣͇̠̪́̾̐̒́͒̍̔͒͘͝Ř̵̨̖͇̓͂̊͛̓̃̂̿̚͝͠8̷̮̈͌͌̈͗͌̇͑̔͌̑̕͝v̷̝̤̲͍͖̬̭̠͌͂̌͝ͅ6̵̲̻̥͖̞̯̲͚̳̬̈́͑̽͌̈́͝ͅ7̷̧̨̧͉̹̳̗̬̠̯̭̝̦̱͎̉̾̃̑̌̎̊͑̈́͊̃͝5̵͉̪͋͛̿͗̔̈̽̈́̔̃͂͘͠R̷̡͇̹̰͔͍͕͚͇͉͇͗̌̊̏̅͜͜͝͠͝8̶̼͐^̷̜̗̅̔̚%̷͔̉̓̈́̑̾͝&̷͉̘̤̾̿͊̇̎͐̅́͋̈́R̷̝̋̀̊̚͝B̴͚̞̠̄̄̒̏^̶̖̦̼͈̺̱̗̹́̏́̃%̶̧̦̝̗̦͓͎̺̺͙̩͈̘͇̀̽̐͂ͅ&̶̗̈́̒̉̌̾͘*̵̛̗̯̙̳͆̽͌̒͌͗̕ G̶̡͈̼̝͉̩͈͉̮͋͋͑́̎͋̂̓͆̇8̸͓̭̜̺̪̻̝͙̤̦́͂́̉̂͑̓̋̓̄̾̑͛͒͝7̶̞̣̻̘̫̥̹̹̩̪̉͆̆͒̽̓̋̀̂̽y̶̪͍̼̓̐ģ̴̨̮̬̹̺͉̈͐͒̎́͜͠*̴̯̭̫̹̣̙͊̔̈́̀̾̒̈́̀͒̅͜͜Y̴̖͓̦͈̥͎̰͇͇̳͔͔̰̱͐̎̔̏̇̔̐͂͠Ģ̵̨̨̝͔̭͒*̵̘͇̟͊̐̇̇̔̔̔̀̚͠͝Ģ̸̱̗̤̫͉͔̖̩̻̥͍̭̒̒̐̆̄́͆́͜*̴̛͚͖͙̙̭̲̤͔̥͔̼̱̫̐̅͐̎̓͒̿́̈́͐͋̕ͅ&̷͍͇̲̮̬̫͎̲̅g̴̡̦͖̞̰͓̱͚̥̔̅͜͜*̷̡̜̜͔͈̙̼̬̞̦͇̘͚̔̉̈̎̕̚^̸̘͓͉͖̺͍̈̀͛̎̌͐̄̉͘͘&̷̪̣̲̘͙̗̍́ͅͅT̵͓̮͍́̋6̵̡̧̪͚̳̞̹̼̬͕͓͈̼̯͖̿̃̄͗̚7̵͔̲̘̩̘̦̃̀̈̿̌Ŕ̶̜̿̑̆̋̅̚͜^̷̡̮̰̱͌͛̇͗̀̂͋͜*̸̡̝̩̦̖̥̹̩̱͈̬̤̃͋́̇r̸͇̯̮̜̻̣̞̻̃̈́̏͂̀̍͑͛̉͋͘͠^̴̡̧̨̰͎̗̝͎̻͖͉̗̌͗͌̾̇̅̾͜*̵̧̖̞͔͔̘̱̱͕̱͓̺͗̓̓̏̅͌͝l̴̢̧̛͓͖̪̦̗͚͖̺̲̜̱̜̑͛̐̓̐̃̓͑̌͜͠͝Ę̷̧̡̙͈͙̖͎͍͎̭̞̺̈̋̎̿͋̿̊̿͗͘͘̚͜͝͝6̸̧̢̛͓̙̺̀̉̒̀͋̇̓͂̌̚̚͝͠K̴̞̭͍͕͇̖̔͛̆̾͐͝Ę̶̱͔͉̤̹̗̖̈́́̓̆̓̽̉̋͘F̴̨̹̠͇̫̰̤̼͚̺̞͖̙̈́̑̀̽͝Ũ̴̡̧̼̥̭̼̝̮͎̭̗͍̱͖̑̈́͑͒͒̉͋͗̎́̊̈̚͜
@@jonathanzogbi3028 The second law of thermodynamics *is* a pattern, and the second law of thermodynamics doesn't even imply that patterns are a miracle. Entropy can increase in one place so long as the entropy in the universe decreases overall. Claiming that that's 'miraculous' is assuming you have any idea whatsoever what the chances of such a thing happening are, which, given that no one does, I doubt you do.
@@jonathanzogbi3028, oh dear, you really think "the database of miracles in the Catholic Church" is convincing? Only if you believe it in the first place.
@@jonathanzogbi3028, because I already know what kinds of "miracles" religious people swallow. Do you know that, even granting all the "miracles" at Lourdes, it fails as a treatment under standard medical protocols due to its abysmally low "cure" rate?
I don’t understand if I 60 mph and it’s 60 miles away and if I go 60 miles an hour I will be there in an hour. How does that prove God because I use math to figure out distance and speed. Can someone explain
The point is that math is applicable to the structure of the physical world, which at a certain level seems incomprehensibly unlikely given naturalism, which has no resources for explaining such correspondence. Given naturalism, it's just as likely that our universe would be an a-mathematical chaos. But if the universe was intentionally created on a mathematical blueprint by a transcendent, perfectly rational mind (God), then the applicability of math to the physical world has a straightforward explanation. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos I honestly perfectly understand it now you explained it perfectly you’re right if I take a bomb and set it off I’m not gonna get numbers. It’s just a blob of a mess but the universe could be measured with precision. I will use this as one of my arguments that God exist. Thank you so much for the video. Thank you for responding.
@@drcraigvideosthis can only work if mathematics was seen anywhere other than human beings. It's not. It's just a form of language we invented. Like words represent ideas, feelings, etc. Numbers and symbols represent logic, real world phenomena, etc.
@@tonyisnotdead Propositions which are truth apt have to do with reality. As such, they either reflect reality or they do not. By saying that math is language-dependent, you are implying that 2+2 did not equal 4 prior to the development of language. Hopefully you see why such a position is highly implausible. Moreover, if God exists, then why think there was ever a time at which language did not exist? If it's possible that 2+2 equaled 4 prior to the arrival of intelligent life in the universe (which seems intuitive), then perhaps there's an argument to be run that such truths imply the existence of God even if math is language-dependent. - RF Admin
I'm a statistician. My job is to make mathematics "work" and explain the world (physical, social, biological, etc.). Given my experience and training, I can definitively say that, no, mathematics is not "surprisingly," "miraculously," or whatever, applicable to the physical world. I can see how someone in the 60's, such as Wigner, think so, with the limited knowledge and tools available at that time. But, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a mathematician/physicist/statistician that'll agree with the premise in the modern day. In fact, I spend all my days, and make a living, coming up with more complicated, sometimes ad hoc, solutions to real world problems to get a marginally better *approximation* using math, but in no way can I say that these models are "applicable" as this video suggests (they work, sometimes). I wish it was true, but it just isn't, to the point where we "know" the limitation of our axiomatic mathematical system, and that there are fundamental aspects that math can never explain.
I can appreciate the work that you do since it is a valuable occupation. Yes, approximations are a part of everyone's daily experience. Nonetheless, precise mathematical models do explain much of nature and those need an accounting of their existence. Just because approximations exist, does not make the simple and elegant mathematical expressions that are at the same time profound go away. When applied to "normal" life, yes boundaries get a little blurred. Can we, for instance, take a boat and precisely - down to the nanometer - show where is the dividing line between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico? But the gravitational relationship between two bodies with mass can be described precisely. But, then again, how that maps out in space when the bodies are not perfectly spherical, will not be precise. So both precision and approximation apply. It is not one or the other. When I use Excel, if in general format, I can get a result that shows 3.1415927x10^-13. If I set that to comma format, I will get 0.00. If I want to go to Mars, I might need the extra precision. If I just need to pass an audit, comma format is more than sufficient. To say Wigner was in a time of "limited knowledge" as far as its application to this discussion is concerned is a bit much. The standard model of physics was mostly known - only a few additions since then such as quarks being confirmed, tau neutrino and Higgs boson. General relativity was long prior confirmed along with the whole quantum world. There still is no GUT/ToE to say we've reached a whole new peak of cosmic understanding. I'm very comfortable standing with Wigner's statement.
@@msvvero My criticism towards Wigner, and the premise/conclusion this video makes, is the notion that physics (and a limited view at that) is everything. I can name several fields (in natural and social sciences, even in physics), where mathematics is not "surprisingly" applicable. To say that because math is surprisingly applicable for some physical phenomena, therefore math is surprisingly applicable to the physical world, is sheer arrogance (and tbh I do see this from physicists from time to time). You're counting the hits and ignoring the misses. For every instance math is surprisingly applicable, I can name a dozen cases where it is not, which seems to defeat the premise. If math has this magical property of explaining the world, why do we have the uncertainty principle? If our physical world is fundamentally probabilistic, the notion that math explains anything is simply about probability approximations, making the argument moot. Why do we have 3000+ axioms in math? If math is so applicable and universal, why do we have the incompleteness theorem, and no unifying axioms? The points raised in this video flies in the face of what we know about math and the physical world, and just doesn't match up with what we (scientists) do, to the point where it's honestly offensive.
My humble guess is because you are not able to know all the needed variables and premises in order to be precise. Since God can know and know that in fact He is able to tell us anything that is going to happen in the universe, precisely.
@@abraao2213 That's a great point! We often think about processes with infinite variables, and check how well our models do, theoretically, against them, knowing that we can never be exactly precise (because we can't deal with an actual infinite number of variables, and more fundamentally the uncertainty principle). But this refutes the argument presented here, because this admits that math is simply an approximation (a finite variable model to an infinite variable process). Sometimes the models work well (because the few variables we have approximate the infinite variables well enough), sometimes it doesn't, making the applicability of math random (coincidental). This actually raises an interesting point regarding (in my opinion the best argument for god) the argument from contingency, which states that if everything is contingent on each another, there must be something that is necessary at the base (i.e. god). However, if there is a model of everything in the universe (which is fundamentally unknown to us), and therefore god can know everything precisely because he knows/created the model (past, present, and future), then things are no longer contingent, but necessary, because it could not have happened any other way (e.g. for e=mc^2, if we have m and c, e has to be e). This makes math and everything necessary (or brute fact), so the argument "math, therefore god" becomes "necessary thing, therefore necessary thing." This is what Oppy raised in his debate with WLC, which WLC had no real answer to. On the other hand, if these phenomena contain something that is fundamentally random (unknowable), even to god, that makes everything probabilistic (god can know the future to some precision, but not exactly), making even god probabilistic (there is something about god that god himself doesn't know, in order for him to create something that he doesn't know), which makes god, well, not god, and just the first random thing in a chain of random things. My view is the latter, because it aligns with what I know from my own studies, but I think the former is also, equally likely, given that we don't have any evidence for either (we don't know if there is even an infinite variable model that is exactly precise, and we can never know). That being said, I think theists and atheists should think hard about the implications of these two views (for example, the former does not allow for free will), and other possible views.
Because General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and other fields do not have this complicated ad hoc structure. Einstein's field equations can be written on the back of a postcard, and yet are confirmed to 14 places of a decimal by observation. Ad hoc models have very little predictive power and have to be made more and more complicated to fit additional observation. This is the exact opposite of what physicists encounter.
This doesn't justify the existence of god. As always, the argument is "We don't know why *insert any mystery* is how it is, therefore the mythical being ancient people invented exists". Doesn't make a lot of sensw
Mathematics is a language invented by human culture. That it works is no more miraculous than words working. It says more about the limitations of human beings than it does the universe. The universe can be usefully described by words, because words are what humans use to describe the world. The universe can be usefully described by mathematics, because mathematics is the most precise method for describing things that human culture has developed so far. If it weren't a useful description, it would not be used as such. Mathematics is no more miraculous than language, mathematics is language. This is really a stupid argument.
"The universe can be usefully described by mathematics, because mathematics is the most precise method for describing things that human culture has developed so far." This is just a circular reasoning. The question really is why is there ANYTHING which describes reality adequately, since whatever that thing is we can just call it "mathematics". Your argument presupposes that there is *something* which can describe reality adequately, thus you are dodging the question entirely...
@@jonassattler4489 If things were not possible to describe, we could not discuss anything. Obviously, we can discuss things. Of necessity, we live in a discussable universe. This is not a miracle. It is a fact. Mathematics does not describe the universe, but is a method of discussing it, the most precise method so far. But the Universe itself is not mathematical. There are no infinite sets, time and space are not infinitely divisible, even basic operations like counting and logic fail. Suppose I start counting oranges. After a while, I find a conjoined orange. How do I count it? Is it one or two oranges? If I count enough oranges, I will come across more conjoined oranges, some almost two oranges, some just a little over one. If a basic mathematical operation such as counting fails so easily, how is the universe reflective of mathematics? Modus Ponens does not describe the real world, but is a statement about how language works. It is useful for reasoning about the world, because it helps ferret out the consequences of our attempts at describing the world. But like counting above, it will fail. Since neither time nor space are infinitely divisible, calculus fails to describe the real world. For example, since an electron is known to be no bigger than 10^-18m, the mass equivalent of the self-energy of an electron, that is the mass of the potential energy of the negative charge constrained to that diameter is much greater than the observed mass of an electron. Counting fails. Logic fails. Calculus fails. But they are the most precise method we have of describing things, as incomplete and inaccurate as those descriptions may be. The conclusions they draw are conclusions about descriptions. Where the description fails, we reject the description. Claiming then that God made the universe describable by mathematics is just plain stupid. If the universe were completely incomprehensible, we would be unable to even form this discussion.
@@antondovydaitis2261 All of this ignores the question poses. Nobody argues that physical laws are actually reality, after all pretty much any theory of physics has been disproven (Newton's laws) or is known to be incomplete (QM, Relativity). But, none of this answers the question why the Universe can even be modeled so simply. Why can you describe our entire theory of light in 4 equations? Why doesn't it take a million equations?
@@jonassattler4489 "Why only 4 and not a million" It seems to me that if we had a million equations you'd still ask "why not a trillion?". The number of equations are just an unimportant thing.
I understand not being satisfied with the happy coincidence response, but why is it wrong? The video states that it does not actually explain why the universe is built off of mathematical principles. But, to say that it is a coincidence is precisely to say that there IS no reason for why it is, rather it just happens to be the case. How would we go about proving, using this argument alone, that this isn’t just a happy coincidence. The final form of the argument even states in one of its premises that this is not a coincidence. There must be some evidence for this, then? You must have evidence that proves it is not a coincidence? And, lastly, couldn’t an atheist respond in a similar way to the claim that God created the world this way? In other words, to say that God created the world on mathematical principles (a claim that cannot possibly be proven, for we would have to know the mind of God), does not answer WHY this is the case. Its just stating that this is how God created the world. This is not much different from saying that this is just how the world is. So, no real explanation is offered.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die!
@ktownbball ktownbball Who is Jesus’s God? Who is Paul referring to as “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ”? Who is Peter referring to as “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”? Who is Jesus referring to when he says “my God”? Rom 15 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 2 Cor 11 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie. Eph 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, Eph 1 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, Col 1 3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 1 Pet 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, Rev 1 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Rev 3 12 He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.
@ktownbball ktownbball I used to be a trinitarian I’m aware of what is taught and I’m saying it’s not in the Bible You won’t find: “Three persons in one being” Or anything remotely close Who is Jesus’s God? Who is Paul referring to as “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ”? Who is Peter referring to as “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”? Who is Jesus referring to when he says “my God”? Rom 15 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 2 Cor 11 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie. Eph 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, Eph 1 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, Col 1 3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 1 Pet 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, Rev 1 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Rev 3 12 He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.
@ktownbball ktownbball There is nothing in scripture about two persons being one being. Let alone three persons being one being. Who is Jesus repeatedly referring to as “my God”? Rev 3 12 He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.
I think you need to look into your discussion with Grahem Oppy some more on this subject. I think he really demonstrated the intuition which dismisses the claim that "The universe is based on mathematics". However your argument is structured very very well.I suspect Dr. Oppy's argument suggests that mathematics is the mere observation of the consistent nature of reality. The "Rules" are just principles of consistency and it's not really about anything else. Which basically dissolves this argument among others into the contingency argument, which I have always asked in the form "why anything?"
It wouldn't really dissolve the argument because it would just push it further towards the issue of natural laws and regularities. If we are just describing the consistent nature of reality, there is still the deeper question of why reality is orderly, how come things follow and display regularities (that we can then describe mathematically) instead of being utterly chaotic and unpredictable. Reality is, at its base-level, orderly, regular, harmonious, predictable. All of that sits much better with the theistic idea that the foundation of reality is the Logos, Mind, than with the naturalistic picture.
The existence of which god? Even if this was all unarguably true, it wouldn’t prove the existence of Yahweh in particular. It could be Allah, it could be all the gods of the Greek mythology, we could be living in a simulation and so it could just be a person.
There's only one God. The God of jews, christians and muslims. I used to think that God is an abstract concept as well. But when you realize that most celebrities, singers and politicians are actually satanists you start to realize that the biblical narrative about Satan ruling this world is true. Just look at Celine Dion making propaganda of a gender neutral baby clothing line with 666 symbols, "New Order" written in the clothes, and goat's heads. Or look at the Gotthard Tunnel opening ceremony in Switzerland, with presidents of many countries watching people dressed as extraterrestrials, fallen angels and goat creatures dancing and simulating sex (it's in TH-cam). Or look at singers like Billie Eilish, dressed as an angel with broken wings while singing "all good girls go to hell". There's something really off about media and the people who control it. This world is ruled by rich people who serve dark powers, and then there's God and his forces fighting against it.
Actually most Satanist do not believe in a literal Satan and even if they did this would not prove any religion correct. Most Satanist use Satan as a metaphor for human rebellion . The term God is a blanket statement for deity which does make it an abstract concept.
@@shanestrickland8481 I know a lot of satanism because I dabbled in satanism myself. What you're talking about is the satanism of Lavey, wich is not true satanism. Lavey was joking with the the concept of Satanism. His church was a parody only meant to mock christianity. He was more of an atheist than a true satanist. Real satanism is not revealed to the public, because real satanists are very rich people who deal with real entities. They believe Lucifer is God and they think God is actually evil. Lavey and his followers are not satanists. This is the "false satanism", wich they want people to believe in. But the ones who inspired Lavey, like Aleister Crowley, they inspired real satanism as well.
Good question, how about you start exploring it yourself? I did the same as an atheist, the logic I used was looking at the root or beginning of each religion. To which I find, most religion in the world seemed like it was made or created for the purpose of ruling over others. Ie, their king or leader being their god. The exception being Christianity and Buddhism, but in Buddhism, Buddha didn't have the answer, he had to seek out the answer, thus the similarity to Hinduism. But Jesus says that He is the way, the truth and the live. Another thing I find interesting, as a person who has been interested in philosophy at a young age, I find that most things shared in philosophy are things that can be logically thought out, or things I have thought of before. But, the bible is different. And finally, through studying psychology and interest since a young age to find truth from falsehood. I find the writing style and the characters of the bible to be very interesting and far-fetched if it were false. These are the few basis for my leap of faith. I do believe logically, science points more towards that there's is a creator than there being no creator. I dont believe its conclusive evidence, just require much less faith that things are so coincidentally here when there's no God. Thus, I believe I have to really explore myself and seek truth. Because it is our lives, and it is only logical that we find out what lies after death.
@@bradsmith9189 The imaginary number is imaginary, only because it doesn't exit on the real line. Last I checked, the physical world is not a real line. www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/imaginary.html But, the broader point is that math is all abstract. It's all made up. Just that some of it is useful/applicable. The notion that you can separate math into things that are "real" and "imaginary" is honestly silly and would only come from someone who has never studied math past high school.
The trivial example I'm thinking of is that complex numbers is a perfectly fine way to describe coordinates in 2D space. Surely we can agree that coordinate systems are more than just an abstract concept. A less trivial example would be modeling of dynamic systems.
@@Nwunchuck27You can't know that. You can't prove that. The difference between people who practice science and religious folk is one group says "I don't know" when they don't know something while the other group says "god did it " until group 1 figures out how it actually works.
I studied at two Ivy League universities, taught mathematics for 19 years, and have spoken on many campuses in the northeastern US including Yale, Columbia, MIT, Rutgers, RPI, Carnegie Mellon, and NYU. Mathematics is indeed the language through which God designed our universe, and the evidence for that only grows stronger with new discoveries in physics, molecular biology, and other fields. Design is in fact everywhere which is why, as the Pew studies have shown, over 80% of mathematicians believe that there is a God. Life is not a chemical accident!
"over 80% of mathematicians believe that there is a God." Wow! can you link it?
"over 80% of mathematicians believe that there is a God"
I'm a faculty member at a math department in an R1 institution. I have met only a handful of people in my field (less than I can count with my hand) who believe in a god. I need a source for this, especially considering that other studies have shown that most scientists are agnostic/atheists. I suspect that the proportion of mathematicians who do not believe is higher.
www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
I also want to point out that you have a BA in history, and an MA in education. Neither of which prepares you to understand mathematics at a sufficient level to discuss this subject. And no, teaching math to high school students is not enough, no matter how long you do it.
@@richardgamrat1944 I think he is referring to this poll:
www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
that shows that 80% of the *general public* believe in god, while the majority of scientists do not. My guess, from being in academia (math), is that this number is much lower for mathematicians, and much lower when you consider the personal god, e.g. christian god.
I'm going to be charitable and say this guy misread the article (how? I don't know), or maybe there's another Pew study that completely contradicts this study. But, I'm being very, very charitable.
The evolutionary theory is pure speculation without any empirical basis. No lab experiment, computer simulation or other empirical data supports evolution.
That's wonderful, if ever I heard an argument from authority this is it.
Well done sir.... It appears that your Ivy league education missed out on logical fallacies 101.
I have a post graduate degree from one of the most prestigious universities in the world. It's also a physical science degree.
Of course, that's not an argument for anything.
Saying I have studied X as University Y and lectured for Z number of years is not evidence that God exists.
God is the greatest mathematician ever!
Nope. On the list over mathematicians in history of mankind there are a long list of humans. God is not on the list at all.
@@freddan6fly Actually Whoever picked the initial conditions and physical constants was indeed the most brilliant mathematician we’ve ever encountered.
With the magnitude of the cosmological constant being pinned down, all (of the many) cosmological physicists (except one) agree that both the initial conditions and the fundamental constants are on a knife-edge for any complex existence at all and have apparent fine-tuning, and that this begs explanation. Even Alan Guth now acknowledges this. Most of them hope it is anthropic, but Roger Penrose (co-author of A Brief History of Time) says the complex and intricate fine-tuning is so impossible that anthropic is no longer reasonable. (It is vastly more probable that you have quantum-fluctuated into existence for an hour, with memories and a local environment included, than it is to have found yourself in one in the on of 10^XXX universes, which btw we have no evidence exist). Not only is it now evidence that chance didnt do it, but if designed then the designer is a mathematical genius beyond all comprehension to have created this. Very prominent theoretical physicist Michio Kaku wonders if a universe with any complex ensembles of matter could be achieved any other way at all, since it is so intricate and balanced. Just the cosmological constant is on a one in 10^55 knife-edge, such that if any higher no chemicals could have formed and if lower the universe would have immediately collapsed and ceased.
@@ibperson7765 There is no evidence there was an entity "who picked the initial conditions and physical constants" for our universe. Without QG and TOE we don't even know how many physical constants there are. We don't know if the physical constant(s) must have its/their value or can vary. What a religious science communicator Micho Kaku says is not science. What a religious and an agnostic scientist speculate over is not science. The scientific consensus among cosmologist is that we don't know why the constant(s) have its/their value. To say goddunit is by default an argument from ignorance. To assign an odds to it is an argument from ignorance. I can also pull an odds out of my behind: The odds for an existence of a god is one in 10!^10!^10!^10!. That is a number with more digits than fermions and bosons in the universe, so I win.
@@freddan6fly Well if you searched “susskind fine tuning” youll find the inventor/discoverer of string theory disagrees with you. He discusses the possibility that there are other models and the constants we think are arbitrary are not. Isnt reasonable that it’ll be solved that way. Cosmological constant is tuned perfectly. Initial conditions that we know of are too. The knife edge of all knife edges. If you do the same for longterm fine tuning holdout Alan Guth, he does now too. Same search roger penrose co-author of “a brief history of time”. And the others. It’s you and Sean Carroll alone in the woods on that one. As I wrote many of them still hope for an imagined giant multiverse with 10^150 universes and penrose shows why thats no longer plausible. Design from a mind is the only source that seems reasonable. (Einstein and Heisenberg and many many many others thought that was the case even before knowing the extent of fine tuning was clear). But you dont get to hear any of the logic of this because of the dogma of the day. Steeped in the lie of scientific materialism (which is self-contradictory) from birth, as I was.
@@ibperson7765 If I search "susskind fine tuning" - I'll find Leonard Susskind's private view on fine tuning. He have not published any paper on the subject. I don't agree with him. Btw in no part of his presentation he says "goddunit". He is just amazed over nature, in his case physics, just like trees can be amazing and still evolved naturally, the same goes for the universe. What we do know is that the exponential growth of the universe stopped at a time 10^-35 seconds after the beginning of big bang. We got some/most the physics for this period of time, but we don't (yet) got the answer to why the exponential expansion stopped. Our biggest accelerator takes us back to 10^-12 seconds after the big bang when the electroweak force was one force. String theory is not yet accepted science. It is a hypothesis. What we *do need* to judge if the universe is fine tuned is both of all of physics: Both Quantum Gravity and Theory Of Everything, a theory that merges the strong force with the electroweak force. But we also need another universe to compare with. Sean Carroll says (rightfully) that the universe seems fine tuned for black holes, since there are more black holes in the universe than living creatures on earth.
I use this video as motivation to do my math homework lol, absolutely amazing that God designed all this so beautifully.
A Volcano "God" in a Fictional STORY-- doesn't prove that the Volcano created Math. :)
Did he tho?
This has to be the worst argument I have ever heard from Craig, and that's saying something. Being a mathematician who studies quantum field theory, I find the part at 3:17 to be especially misguided. If you think imaginary numbers can't have any place in the physical world, you don't know what imaginary numbers actually are. Spoiler, the name is a horrible misnomer. The imagination of nature is far greater than man's. They keep saying that naturalists can't explain it, but I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned (god).
Are you saying there's no absolute truth? and why CAN'T the answer be God? The imagination of nature is far greater than man's, that sounds like something that would be supernatural.
@@raspberrymist That's just god-did-it, personal incredulity with supposed imagination found in nature.
And then there's the absolute truth -- while I am not denying it's existence rather I am just not affirming it -- what is "absolutely true" may never be known, and thus it is not useful. I mean could you even tell us the absolute "truth" without relying on faith? History proved us that it's a resounding "NO". Science, with it's language Math, is used to get as close to the truth as if possible through trial-and-error and self-correction, and while it's not absolute truth, at least it's useful.
You cannot believe in a God but you believe BY FAITH that "nature has an imagination". Atheists are the greatest religion by far in our known world. Atheists have WAY more faith than any belief system.
Can you prove what imagination is scientifically or is your statement pure nonsense?
Maybe you can explain what mind is? Not the brain, but mind?
Logic?
@@raspberrymist Why can't the answer be god?? You demonstrate experimentally to us all why god should or must be the answer, and then we've got something going.
And yes I believe that the true statements about the nature of of the universe are absolute, which is to say, they don't depend on our opinions of them. I just don't have the hubris to think that I do or even can come to know all of those truths. We know some things about the universe and don't know others. Let's just keep looking for more truths! In the meantime, keep religion out of science classrooms.
@@redfaux74 //You cannot believe in a God but you believe BY FAITH that "nature has an imagination".Atheists are the greatest religion by far in our known world. Atheists have WAY more faith than any belief system.//
That theism hasn't met it's burden of proof is not a matter of faith. All it takes to be an atheist is to be aware of this fact.
//Can you prove what imagination is scientifically or is your statement pure nonsense?
Maybe you can explain what mind is? Not the brain, but mind?
Logic?//
Let's say this can't be shown scientifically here and now, that doesn't mean the answers aren't there. There are many things we once couldn't explain but we can now. A lack of explanation to a difficult question now isn't evidence God is the explanation. You need more than that to show God is the explanation.
I just pray He helps me understand math
I wholly believe you are smart enough to get there on your own if you say you suddenly understand something
A Volcano "God" in a Fictional STORY-- doesn't prove that the Volcano created Math. :)
A Volcano doesn't have a penis
He may have designed your brain to be good at something else, something you may haven't found yet. Trust in the Most High Creator, He and His Word will not let you down
@@cailaporsch8236 No Volcano ever "designed" a human brain...
I used to say to atheists in discussions, that their theory of the Universe and life, demands many miracles!
So, between the two explanations, I preffer the Universe created by God!
I actually created the universe, but I lost my Godhood for some reason...
The Big Bang theory was created by a Catholic Priest...
@@simaofernandes1143 The Big Bang Theory could has been created by my mother!
I don´t care, because it is not even scientific!
Who created god, what mathematical equation is god
Existence itself is proof of God. Just kidding lol
God is wonderful!! all glory to him!
Amen
A Volcano "God" in a Fictional STORY-- doesn't prove that the Volcano created Math. :)
Like the Divine, mathematics are inexhaustible. Does the number Pi stand higher than the Gods we created in our image, imagined over the millenia?
So God is a man?
@@minhthaopham8645 Would be more logical to have a "woman" as the first Goddess, mother of Gods. Mother of mothers, source of all sources.
I cannot believe anyone would still doubt the existence of God after seeing such a perfect design of the universe and the spotless beauty of nature. The infinite genius of God seen in His uncountable creations is just way beyond our understanding. Just one example: Do you know the earth is at a perfect distance from the Sun? If the earth is moved a notch closer or farther, the whole world is doomed. Thus perfect distance was fashioned by God and the system has stood for over 4.5billion years! Yes, it is the command of God. It never fails!
100% of the Universe is uninhabitable within a rounding error of a billionth, and the rest of it is home to microbes and parasites that could make your last days alive a living hell.
Earth also isn't at a perfect distance. It could have been tens of millions of kilometres closer or farther from the Sun and life could still have come about.
Like the Divine, mathematics are inexhaustible. Does the number Pi stand higher than the Gods we created in our image, imagined over the millenia?
So what you're saying is, if god real, why universe big? I think you've solved it! Now lets all cut off our dicks. @@Demiligne
It's not Gods fault you're an incel.@@HarryNicNicholas
@@HarryNicNicholas i was gonna say that it could be that god doesn't want everyone to survive cancer because of a greater purpose but why would god want someone to die to cancer what is the necessity of death in this situation so than why not cure all people do some deserve to be healed while others don't it just makes no sense
“If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics.” ~ Sir Roger Bacon
So take your quote -since you believe it to be truth- as a matter of the science of Philosophy... did you use math to come to this conclusion or philosophy? Therefore, philosophy presupposes math.
well bacon was clearly an idiot :) that is in no way a modern definition of the scientific method :) you doubt everything, no theory is above attack .. and never ever should be. Just because we cannot disprove a theory today, doesnt mean new evidence wont pulverise it tomorrow .. we can only think of things as TEMPORARILY correct, or close enough to observable reality. "certainty without doubt" would literally mean the death of science
@@dkol3250 And alchemy preceded chemistry, astrology preceded astronomy. God is still in the fable/myth/imaginary being category.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:03 🧮 Understanding Mathematics in the Universe
02:20 🤔 Philosophical Perspectives on Mathematics' Effectiveness
03:44 🌌 The Argument for God's Existence
Made with HARPA AI
Math applies to the physical world because it is designed to describe the physical world.
that was easy
👏
This video considers & dismisses this superficial explanation. The question is not merely, “Why does it describe nature so effectively?” but “Why does it APPLY to nature so effectively?”. Why can we use descriptions of what has happened in one situation, to make predictions of what will happen in every situation? What is forcing the universe to abide by these procedures?
@@geomicpri the video solves a mystery by adding a greater mystery.
And it goes the route of using ignorance as a type of evidence.
"I dont understand, therefor god"
@@TheAndnor No, if anything, you could sooner accuse it of going the route of arrogance; “I DO understand, therefore God.” But I think you’d fail there too.
@@geomicpri sure, arrogance is also present. But so is ignorance.
either way, their reasoning for inserting a god must also apply to their god, so its not an explanation.
"Because God did it" is not a conclusive, or persuasive, or even plausible argument. You are reasoning towards a forgone conclusion (which may yet be correct) not trying to follow the logic to wherever it leads.
Without God you have no reason to believe that mathematics work, you have no reason to believe that the laws of logic exist. You're simply stuck begging the question. As a Christian I know these things exist and work properly because they're rooted in the nature of God. You're mad that this isn't conclusive and yet your entire existence is not conclusive without God as the foundation.
@@vanyatsurkan6917 Really? Let's look at the Law of Identity, one of the classic laws of logic. The Law of Identity, A=A, states that a thing is what it is and is not what it is not. So we have two things here, the statement A=A and that to what the statement refers, being, that things can only be what they are. It's impossible for matters to be otherwise, things can only be what they are, they can't be what they are not. It's this impossibility for things to not be what they are that makes it an absolute and universal rule and therefore a Law of Logic. So there we are, an acount of a Law of Logic and God doesn't come into it.
@@vanyatsurkan6917 : I don't see a single thing that suggests a god is necessary to call 1 & 1 2. It just happened because we found it to be a necessary tool like a bowl to hold food. Look at Roman numerals. They begin with a collection of sticks. I, II, III,
@@vanyatsurkan6917 The reason to believe that the laws of logic work is that it can be demonstrated empirically. The fact that you can't be absolutely certain about it is irrelevant because there is nothing that you can be absolutely certain about. Absolute certainty is not a requirement for anything to be practically useful. Also if god created the laws of logic can he change it to his likings whenever he wants? That means what we believe about the laws of logic now can simply become invalid whenever god decides so. So throwing in god doesn't add anything to our confidence in the laws of logic. God just a superfluous additional assumption that we have to take on faith that doesn't add anything useful.
@@Whatsisface4 Boring. "Law" is misleading, rather postulate/axiom is what they really are. The classical "laws" are just postulates assumed to be self-evident via human intuition, but no real proof.
"a thing is what it is and is not what it is not" Which is nothing but a baseless assertion on. The first part of this statement already implies a thing/entity is bounded or categorizable in some way ('what it is') but this may not be the case if for example the thing/entity in question is limitless/ineffable in some ways. Or in other words, not strictly countable (like an infinite sequence). This would invalidate the very task of trying to identify it and therefore incapable of being part of the law of identity.
Aristotle's three axioms are just assumptions based on human cognitive limits, nothing more. Laws...how cute
This is limited thinking. Naturalist dont believe its "happy coincidence". They discover nature and try to figure out what laws operate them using mathematical explanations. It's not that they formulate mathematical equations and later realize "oh, its something". Although they realize that one mathematical equation actually applies to many phenomena. And also, there are phenomena that defies some established laws. For example, black holes are enomaly in gravitational law.
You are missing the point here. Why Math is. Math is not a product of human mind, but a discovery transcribed mentally from the Universe. Fundamentaly this intrinsic logic of relationships and ratios is behind the Universe, it also can be said that the math is the result of how the Universe is.
In both cases this relationship in itself shows that the properties of the universe are fully ratio-nal.
As Nikola Tesla said: "What one man calls God, another calls the laws of physics." What atheism in nutshell is saying that the laws aren't constructed rationally. But intrinsically they are.
This relationship between abstract and material cannot be expanded as "coinsidence" because it is self reference tautology - "coinsidence" is a mathematical property of probability.
Clearly you are ignorant of history of science and math. At least read Eugene's paper. There are many cases where math was conceived first and later that turned out to reflect reality.
@@LyubomirIko No, that's not what atheism says. Atheism is not believing in god. An atheist can be ignorant of what the laws of physics are and what math is and they're still an atheist. For that matter, an atheist can believe in another supernatural explanation (that isn't god) for the laws of physics.
Ultimately we can't test whether or not any of these explanations are correct. So I think it's best to not make any assumptions and accept that we don't know why the universe has patterns that can be understood and described by a rational mind.
@@Nickesponja can you state another reason other than God as to why maths is rational?
@@sugetsumillenium2112 No, I don't think I can. That would require knowing why the universe works the way it works, which isn't something we can investigate, at least right now.
Of course, I *could* just make up an explanation (which would need to be unfalsifiable so that you can't prove me wrong), but that wouldn't get us anywhere now would it?
I am an orthodox Christian with education in math, science, and engineering. I know this is a high level presentation, but one must be careful when slinging around terms like miracles (a very loaded (connotative) word usually referring to exceptions to the way things normally work, but mean something else here that perhaps need not be called a miracle.) And even the scope of what mathematics can do (in our hands) is more limited that what is suggested.
In simple physical systems, with OBJECTS experiencing FORCES which do follow simple laws, we can create differential equation (or other mathematical models) that fully define the classical mechanics of the system. And WHEN these equations can be solved (not all can), we get a mathematical description of the behavior of that system over time, etc.. As the system gets more parts the equations get too hairy and eventually become unsolvable (to us) so we resort to numerical iterated approximations of the solutions that can be as accurate as we want.
But at some point, we cannot even do such iterative approximations because real-world computation speeds cannot handle the complexity. Then we look for new laws and formulas that govern or describe new and useful EMERGENT PROPERTIES (& behaviors) that EMERGE and for awhile we can often find math that describes the net behavior of the system even though we cease to be able to computing it from the simpler underlying laws. We find that there are heuristic and statistical formulas that work pretty well, for a few kinds of behavior, but we cannot know or predict everything about the system behavior. [Though likely God can see it.]
At yet higher levels of complexity, or size (where quantum and relativistic effects emerge, we find that only statistical solutions can be found, the system is no longer strictly deterministic--there are things that are unobservable to us that affect behavior [where we could imagine God fiddling with system behavior in ways that can never be observed--the realm of Miracles]. When you get to subatomic or biological or human levels, only a few things can be described mathematically, even with statistics, and most behavior is uncaptureable with mathematics--there is a lot that cannot even be described by us, even though everything "below" is coming out of "physical laws" but if we are clever, we can find new things that can be described by mathematics and new kinds of mathematics so that we can engineer the system to make it do what we want. [Of course God may not be limited in these ways, and indeed likely is not relying just on mathematics to see and control.].
CONCLUSIONS: There are indeed a lot of things that allow mathematical analysis
This can be beautiful and impressive, but like all the creations of mankind, it is a humble and weak thing compared to what God can do with the universe. And it may be that God does not use math Himself, but still may have chosen to build in these math-modelable qualities into his design primarily FOR OUR BENEFIT, so that we can understand how to control some things, and to make the universe not be entirely inscrutable to us.
The very meaning of supernatural is that which is beyond our experience of what we deem as natural. A supernatural being,therefore may not be affected by cold or heat or perhaps not needing air or water, light or darkness etc or become physically tired or hungry etc. They are unaffected by things that affect us,also having an ability to be everywhere at the same time, just like the ambient air that surrounds us or the ability to dematerialise and pass through solid objects . Things we would consider as a miracle to do.
The earth has never existed…
4.6 Billion/Infinity=0. I’m also an Engineer/Math major and I followed your wording very carefully. Why are you avoiding the answer to your own explanations?
My 11 and 13 year old sons are big fans of Numberphile and 3blue1brown and have become quite the math nerds. Their response to this was "whoa". I think it encouraged their love of math even more because it's a way for them to tap into God's mind.
That's awesome !
They responded to this video? Wow that was fast! This video was just posted. Can you post the link?
It's a shame the entire argument presented in this video is wrong then. Humans created systems of mathematics to describe reality. When there's a breakdown in our understanding of maths that leads to disagreement with reality, we either alter our current mathematical systems or create new ones to better describe what we see in nature.
You might as well ask why a video game controller fits your hands: because we designed controllers to fit our hands. Not because our hands were designed to fit controllers.
@@Vivi2372 Exactly, but you know.. why use your brain when you have an imaginary invisible friend you can talk to.. :D
Really? If there was no God, would 1+1 still equal 2?
well, for me, it just adds up !
No pun intended? 😆👌
Nice one😁😁😁
Funny and true 😄
I see what you did there
Mathematics is a man made language that defines and describes how reality operates. To proffer mathematics as evidence for a mythological deity is ridiculous.
well done, animators..
Yeah, because animation is the only thing that is well done. The rest are fallacies everywhere.
David Oñate
Fallacies in the thought not in the making of content..
Ghost I wonder why r u even here..
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
RSV
Only-monos
God-theos
Monos theos
Monotheism
The Father
Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)!
Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God!
Jesus has a God!
Jesus died!
God can’t die!
God raised Jesus from the dead!
@@mitchellc4 yeah bro, many Christians are living on lies told by church
My favorite video on TH-cam . I watch this video every single day . Superb animations , explanations and editing.
The conclusion that God exists because mathematics is applicable is not logically sound. The applicability of mathematics to the natural world may be a remarkable and nontrivial fact, but it does not necessarily imply the existence of a deity. There are many other explanations for the applicability of mathematics, including the idea that mathematics is a human invention that reflects the underlying structure of the physical universe, or that mathematical patterns exist because of evolution and natural selection. Additionally, the idea that the existence of a deity is required to explain the applicability of mathematics is a matter of religious belief, and not a scientifically or logically proven fact. As such, this argument fails to establish a compelling case for the existence of God.
Are you saying math is a result of natural selection?
How do we defend or prove the second premise ??
You don't. It's begging the question
@@49perfectss how?
@@nareenmolugu1016 it's assuming the thing exists before having evidence
As a mathematician, I must confess, I've never thought about this before. Excellent argument. I do wonder though wheter mathematics is a contingent (i.e. created) concept, or whether it exists necessarily.
I think it is a expression of how God thinks. It is like logic, God is logical that is the reason the universe is logical.
Maybe this article can helps a little answersingenesis.org/creation-science/taking-god-out-of-the-equation/
@@abraao2213 Are you familiar with the incompleteness theorem, or the undefinability theorem? It states that a formal system, such as logic, has, at its core, something that is unprovable (axiom). If god is logical (or if logic is an expression of how god thinks), that means god also contains something that is unprovable (even to him). This seems to be a tricky proposition, as it invokes a modified version of the Euthyphro dilemma. If god is logic, then god is not "complete" (from the incompleteness theorem), but if god gives us logic, it can change, making it subjective and not universal, as god can change logic. It's a dilemma, because either choice leads to conclusions that are uncomfortable. Something to think about.
@@dr.shousa I am aware of this theorem. But I do not see how this can affect God, since God is the Truth himself He will always knows for sure anything He states, so this theorem can eve apply to us, mere mortals with limited knowledge, but not to God, that is whom defines what is and what is not. If I am not mistaken, axioms can be understood also as self evident truth, something that does not need to be proven because it is self evident truth, so the unproven does not entail absence of knowledge.
@@dr.shousa also I cannot see how this leads to euthyphro dilemma of sorts, because if God can be illogical then he can be logical and illogical at the same time, if God can be illogical then there is no dilemma. The dilemma actually is illogical, because it assumes that God can do something illogical. It assumes God can actualize something illogical, if He can, then what is the dilemma?
So how do you defend premise 2? I don't see it in this video.
Around minute 3.
@@RstRlx no, that's a god of the gaps reasoning
trickjacko How? I didn’t see it this way.
@@RstRlx The video basically says atheists don't have an explanation of the applicability of mathematics whereas theists do and that explanation is God. That's a God of the gaps reasoning, so I don't really take that as a defense for premise 2.
@Gabe Norman it is
Can you please add Godel's arguments for God to this? His math is a really interesting take on this.
That was an amazing argument for God. I was trying to use this argument, but I wasn't all that good at wording it correctly. I really like this argument. It is one of my favorite. Thank you for explaining it so well.
It's not that you weren't able to word it
its just that this argument is a logical fallacy, because we've created mathematics based on our observations to the world around us, and based on these rules we've reached possibilities that have not been witnessed yet
so we've extracted mathematics from our observations of the physical world, its only natural for it to work with it
and to answer the question of why it does, the answer is neither of us know, not a theist or atheist could answer that question right now
@@mr.raider744 It's not just the way mathematics work with the physical world, but the way the physical world (and mathematics which are essentially the representation of the physical world) works within itself that is miraculous. One such example would be Euler's identity, which elegantly connects all the seemingly unrelated components of mathematics that are drawn from everywhere (e a transcendental that represents natural growth, pi from geometry, i from imaginary numbers, and just -1 and 0) and put it in a beautiful and simple equation. We of course can say "yeah that's just how things are. Things were just like that from the very beginning," but it seems inexplicable when we ask "why" it is the way it is.
@@HarryNicNicholas look up euler’s identity
it's really not...
th-cam.com/video/gNQkSJXUzjo/w-d-xo.html
@@mr.raider744 that cannot be the case because there are mathematical formulas, like i, that cannot have any physical or universal relation to any other thing
Um, complex numbers are used to describe wavefunction of particles sooo yeah, they can possibly exist.
'used to describe' is your fall down here
@@sarahatkinson5528 are you a Chris ?
@@marwanlalaalknz4244 Chris?
@@silentghost751 christian, he meant christian
@@kacper7370 *Christian
What is the mystery here?
1. The universe has patterns.
2. Mathematics is the study of patterns.
3. The universe's patterns can be described with mathematics.
Solved.
Mathematics is more than the study of patterns.
Uhh... no. The language of math is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive. We use math to create models (descriptions) of the universe around us, and the models we come up with are always being modified to better fit what we see with more and better data.
If you don't know this, you've never taken a real math class in a real school.
Yes, math is descriptive of reality. We calculate the laws of nature using maths, but the fact that it works implies that the universe operates according to a mathematical blueprint. If it didn't, maths couldn't describe reality.
@@apologetix2577 You are just scientifically illiterate. Math is the language we invented to describe reality. We get better and better models. Newton's law of gravity work for most of what happens in our solar system, but not for procession of Mercury's orbit, gravitational waves and light bending. General relativity works for these cases. But not perfect. We can not predict the orbits of the planets 10 billion years from now.
@@freddan6fly So are you saying that numbers don’t exist, even in the abstract sense?
@@TheLyricsGuy No you are misunderstanding me on purpose. Numbers as an idea exists. Go read history of mathematics. Only know and unknown humans on that list, not a single god.
@@TheLyricsGuy I know that oc thinks that abstract numbers exist, but I disagree. The concept of there being two things makes intuitive sense, but just think about two cells for a moment.
A couple of hours ago they were one cell. At what point in time did the number 2 start describing them? I would argue, that there isn't an answer to this.
Outstanding editing
“The physical world operates mathematically” is an unproven claim. The only thing we can assert for now is that mathematics seems to be a pretty good set of tools to model how the physical world operates up to a certain degree of precision. You can’t infer from that that there exist a mathematical set of tools that perfectly models how the physical world operates.
Plus the only way it would not violate the Gödels’ incompleteness theorem would be to posit that the physical world is not all there is. This too is an unproven claim that leads to circular reasoning.
I find your comment illogical. Mathematics seems to prove reality is not running on randomness, but following rules that are described by maths. One example is the ballistic path of a bullet, but also, the so many, if not all phenomenons following a Normal distribution pattern from which we can deduct a probability that is related to standard deviation.
BeyondAnyBeliefs it could just mean that there is always a mathematical model that is a better approximation of how the universe operates. That does not mean that there is one that matches exactly how the universe operates.
How did they find out that planet Mercury will be a little late on horizon next Tuesday? By using mathematics. And when they looked, it sure was late. So the claim is valid. The world is governed mathematically.
The question was is physical world all there is? No, there is also this set of mathematical tools that exists beside it. There are two worlds, thew world of ideas and the physical world. We can imagine, that without the physical world, there would still be this other world of just numbers.
Now the question is, also, how does this physical world emerge? Can it emerge from immaterial mathematics, or how does it relate at least, to this other realm? The research has been done on that question, with this video or otherwise. What they did with this research is they reverse engineered the matter. The smallest matter, they found out, is only half material, half immaterial. Like photon, for example, it has some property measured in meters, but that all that is has, it doesn't feel any kilograms or any seconds. So this fundamental matter is already half mathematical half physical.
Now this is not exactly Godel's theorem, but because, once you have sheer dimensionless numbers in the first realm, they can be arranged on a line, then you get a dimension, then an imaginary number can be added, then you get a notion of other dimensions. Then name the dimensions meter, second and kilogram, any name will do. Then in the realm of mathematics, you have infinitely many dimensions with infinitely many possible names, and one thing is also there, natural constants. They exist simply because the numbers and the dimensions exist. And that numbers do wonders. They "relate" somehow meter to second (constant c), second to kilogram (Planck's constant), kilogram to temperature (by Boltzman's constant... or some other number for some other universe, all ideas are there). But that is all still all in the immaterial world. The question still remains unanswered. How does the break through from immaterial to material world happen? First guess should be, obviously, that it happens through things that are half material half immaterial.
Kasius Klej that’s the thing though: you are still making an unproven (and I’d argue probably unprovable) claim that the world is governed by mathematics, where the most we can say right now is that it seems that given a degree of precision, we are always able to find some mathematics that allows us to accurately model how the world behaves. Also, you claim that there is somehow the immaterial and the material world, and classify mathematics and ideas in the immaterial without any proof of the matter. Ideas and hence mathematics could simply be seen as emerging abstractions represented by brain states and transitions following specific and recurring patterns. Nothing immaterial there.
@@Steponlyone No, the ideas are not material by definition. Take away the whole material world, for example. What's left? Numbers 1,2,3, and others are certainly still there. They are immaterial, but they exist.
And then about the claim. Yes, I think the same. It cannot be proven.To be more precise, the planets, for example, obey the laws of motion, and these are physical laws, expressed by mathematics.
But this is a bad example. Take for example 1 kilogram of anything. That is material by definition. But that kilogram of anything also exists, or rather the immaterial copy of it, in the world of mathematics. There in this world it is just a combination of number one and an arbitrary name, like kilogram.
This is just a "God of the gaps" argument.
The universe operates with consistency. Things don't suddenly start behaving differently. Light has the same speed; gravity has the same strength; atoms have the same properties etc. That enabled us to develop a consistent language to describe these consistent things. I don't see anything surprising in that.
All Dr Craig is doing is pointing at that and going "God did it!" I'd like to see his evidence. Oh, he doesn't have any. He never has any. All he has is a hypothesis.
My guess is he would argue that the consistency of the universe comes from God since he argues God created everything (see his Kalam and fine-tuning arguments). But he also argues that God makes it inconsistent sometimes with miracles (see his arguments about the resurrection). So if it's consistent then it's God and if it's inconsistent it's God. How very convenient.
If your a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you're William Lane Craig then everything looks like God. However, all he ever offers are hypotheses. He hasn't ever put any evidence on the table to confirm his hypotheses. It's all just what he reckons. But there is no reason to believe any of it is actually true, unless you count "I like these beliefs," which I don't count and he does.
1.The god of the void is an overused outdated atheistic cliché because you really don't understand the argument because you obviously haven't read his chapter on this argument, you've also never read books on the philosophy of mathematics because oo really is a huge problem.
2. On atheism, the incredible applicability of mathematics is just a coincidence and it has nothing to do with consistency (you confuse logic and mathematics), but with the mathematical structure of the universe, if everything was the result of chance we would expect only chaos, indeed chaos is not metaphysically impossible, or we would have primitive mathematics like arithmetic and not an elegant equation with which we describe the universe.
3. So we have a deductive argument:
1) If God does not exist, the incredible applicability of mathematics is just a coincidence
2) The incredible applicability of mathematics is not just a coincidence
Conclusion: God exists.
4. Kalam has nothing to do with this argument, but he is not the God of emptiness either, but a deductive syllogism that establishes the existence of the first cause and a conceptual analysis of some of its properties.
5. The fine-tuning argument is also a deductive argument and not a God of the Void.
6. Miracles do not mean that the universe is inconsistent, the universe can only be inconsistent if it violates the axiom of non-contradiction, which miracles do not do, a miracle is just an intervention in the natural world.
@@kenandzafic3948 In what way is is he doing anything other than using a god of the gaps argument. You may think it's overused but it seems entirety relevant. He hasn't demonstrated mathematics is the result of a god - he merely asserts it. He also does this with Kalam and fine-tuning.
How would you know what a universe without a god would look like? If the Christian god exists then the idea of "without god" is nonsensical since god is a necessary being. There can be no "without god". If, however, there is no god, then what we see is a universe without god and it's not chaotic in the way you describe.
Under atheism, the only conclusion is "you haven't demonstrated that any of this is due to a god".
No I haven't read his book. I responded to a video. I wasn't aware tgat watching a video obligated me to read a book. He didn't say his video is worthless if you don't read his book so I'm responding to what he put out here.
@@philb4462 1. This is a form of the God of the Gap argument: I don't know how this happened, so God did it.
Now look at these arguments:
1) If the universe began to exist, the universe has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
Conclusion: The universe has a cause
1) Fine-tuning can be the result of chance, physical necessity, and intelligent design
2) Fine tuning is not the result of chance and physical necessity
Conclusion: Fine-tuning is the result of design
1) If god does not exist the incredible applicability of mathematics to the real world is a coincidence
2) The incredible applicability of mathematics to the real world is no accident
Conclusion: God exists
Therefore, all arguments are deductive, which means that the conclusion that God exists follows by rational deduction from the premises; nowhere did it say i don't know how this happened so god did it so don't repeat the god of the void nonsense (which is just an outdated atheistic cliché like i said).
2. This is just a straw man fallacy because we can very easily know what the universe would look like without God, it would be just chaos, or we would only have primitive mathematics like arithmetic, I guess you know how to count and then realize that the more complex the structure the less probable, god is metaphysically necessary, but equally necessary beings can be metaphysically impossible, and this argument confirms that god is metaphysically possible.
@@philb4462 3. Yes, I proved it, but you are just pretending to be stupid because I presented this argument deductively, and the only way to refute a deductive argument is to refute some of its premises, which you did not do.
4. Well, of course you haven't read it, if you did you wouldn't be banging nonsense on the comments and it's a chapter and not a book, and the video is not worthless, this is a logical error and a slippery slope because the video only needs to introduce the argument like his other animated videos.
@@kenandzafic3948 In your second and third arguments your second premise is an undemonstrated claim and therefore you conclusions do not follow from your premises.
Your claim that the universe would be chaotic without god has not been demonstrated. How could you possibly know anyway? If you think god created everything and nothing would exist without god, how could there be anything to be in chaos without god? How did the things that are in chaos come about without god if a god is required to create things? If you are saying that, for example, the gravitational constant would no longer be a constant and would constantly change without god, what would act upon it to cause it to change?
It's all god of the gaps...
We don't know why the universe came into being, therefore god.
We don't know why the universal constants have the values they have, therefore god.
We don't know how maths has come to describe the universe so well, therefore god.
You really haven't done anything more profound than that.
I think the entire argument can be summed up by the first premise at 4:30: "If God does not exist, then the applicability of mathematics is just a happy coincidence". --- Is that really true? Couldn't there be other reasons that this particular youtube video has just not considered. Perhaps mathematics is just the natural way universes run themselves, and we have simply evolved to use reason --- sufficient to infer the laws of mathematics. It seems that this first premise is therefore probably not true. Besides, even if there is a God, surely a God could choose to make a non-mathematical universe? So why did God choose to make a universe that was very mathematical, but not so complicated that we couldn't understand it (if indeed we can understand it at its most fundamental)? It doesn't seem like there's an answer to that, so are theists really in a better position? This argument makes no sense at all when examined closely.
---
Let us consider adding a new extremely plausible additional premise:
1b. Even if there was a God, it is still happy coincidence that God chose the applicability of mathematics (since He could easily have had it lots of other ways).
Now the argument is infeasible meaning that one of the premises needs to go, but we have no idea which.
---
One more point: The argument was put forward by Wigner, who remained atheist. If this argument, which on the face of it looks weak (unsound first premise), didn't convince Wigner, why should it convince us?
"So why did God choose to make a universe that was very mathematical, but not so complicated that we couldn't understand it (if indeed we can understand it at its most fundamental)?"
Well, the math done on architectural structures vary from basic to complex, so we could just be slowly figuring out the complexity of our infinite universe.
Also, if God chose mathematics, it's probably less coincidence and more by intentional design.
Other then these qualms, I think your argument holds up. There are better arguments for God's existence, but this video seems to mix up aesthetics and physics.
Maybe William Lane Craig has a stronger argument on his website for mathematics proving God. I haven't checked it out yet so I can't confirm.
Mathematics isn't a coincidence, humans invented Mathematics on purpose to describe the universe.
@@gctcauto Is Mathematical system representing relations?
The first math was putting stick (I) on the ground and seeing the relationship of them, can you see them? :
I I I I
Clearly even a child can rearrange them differently. For instance like this:
II II
Oh hey! Now that arrangement have new relationships - they appear from far away not as four sticks but as two. Wonder if I can do the same with one new stick on the ground:
II III
Nope ... But if I just snap the new stick in the middle ...
IIi IIi
Yep.
These relations are DISCOVERED by humans through observations. By arranging visually only sticks you can EXPLORE them.
The alien on the planet x will do the same - and will DISCOVER the same results.
What is invented is the Mathematical symbols - to represent these relations. These relations are repetitive in nature however, so Mathematics fundamentaly is discovered, not invented.
@@LyubomirIko This REQUIRES intelligent beings to exist to create the relationships. Sticks are just sticks amd have no natural inherent relationship to each other.
@@gctcauto well you was in need of a stone age approach to understand that math is Universal discovery and that aliens too will come to the same discovery if are intelligent enough. Don't blame me that you don't understand this, that's on you buddy.
It's not a coincidence that maths describes the world. It was designed for that purpose. We made maths to describe the world. Being amazed that it works so perfectly is like being amazed that a ship floats
Then why we have unaplicable mathematics like negative number and infinity concept which cannot explain anything in the universe?
@@laosi4278 negative numbers are there to explain the concept of debt.
@@JM-19-86 calculus was invented to explain the motion of planets. Maths was made to describe the world. 1+1=2. That was done for trade. Multiplication and division were invented to save ourselves time. Just like algebra to find out unknown numbers
It is amazing that ships float. That we have so many elements out of a primitive start. That some material can sail on others. That we are in the middle of nowhere and we can actually sail to each other. That life exists in oceans and land in so much variety. Shows God’s masterful creativity.
@@Nimish204 i can say you dont have the knowledge of general theory of relativity or you wouldnt say this.
I don't think the second premise of the argument is sound, or at least the way it is expressed is not correct. Because, how to explain a happy coincidence without mathematics? Coincidence just points to something we don´t have enough information to explain, we are trying to explain something here.
Whatever belief this guy has, I respect it. I'm a Muslim and really like this video.
It's just doesn't make sense to me when atheists tell me that all these design we found on the universe is a mere coincidence. Believing in a creator is far more logical than believing the perfect universe comes from none.
Now we have to show them the proof of Jesus, but they'll still be biased
@@silentghost751 You do know that this video is based on ignorant facts and is excluding many important aspects and many lies, don't you
@@silentghost751 lol .. please show me proof of jesus, an afterlife, anything youve got :) prove to me that the earth is flat and stable and the sun orbits it .. prove half the old testament isnt stolen from the stories of osiris or the epic of gilgamesh .. prove jesus own ideas are in NO WAY stolen from socrates (famously executed for doubting athena and zeus might be real, amongst other "crimes" lol .. that jesus did NOT steal his ethical ideas from an atheist .. prove that one lol) .. prove there was a planetwide flood .. prove all animals and humans on the planet are descended from single original pairs .. prove all the aussie animals were at one point taken to iraq or somewhere, put on a boat that held them for 40 days, then deposited back in Oz after the floodwaters receded, by some bronze age desert dwellers who didnt even know Oz existed lol .. prove a WOODEN BOAT built by a single family in what I presume is a few months, could handle all known land animals, which is over 30 million species .. and ofc you need TWICE that because youve a boy and girl of each one .. prove it also held food for 60 million animals for 40 days LOL .. prove at any point was there enough wood even available on earth to build this monstrous nautical death star of a vehicle lol .. prove a loving god that designed a hell of infinite pain for infinite time is somehow a sane being worthy of any form of worship, rather than being the foundation of an ethical necessity to join Lucifer and the rebels .. PS also prove Lucifer is real too, ofc lol
@@markhill3858 all scholars agee Jesus is real. There's plenty of NDEs too. The Bible said the earth was a sphere. You should see the differences between the Bible and all the others. Some believe the flood to be a lesson, rather than an historical event. God made everything out of love, but our sinful nature ruined it
@@luisesteves5929 what do you mean
Without referring to any Religious Book and any biases that anyone may have, which God is the Creator ?
The argument in-and-of-itself does not get you to Yahweh. The argument in-and-of-itself does not get you to Jesus.
@@ChannelPabilona ---- Historical Arguments are Terrible. They only convince people who want to be convinced.
I went to Wallsend High School and came top of the year in Math. That is Historically True. Do you believe it ?
@@TheMirabillis would you stand by its truth to the point of being killed for it? Jesus' disciples did.
@Ashley Barratt Can you think of any other religious fundamentalists that died for their beliefs? I can think of many.
@@TheMirabillis how else would you come to the conclusion of which religion is right? Isn't looking at the origins/foundation of the religion important?
@@ashleybarratt1672 Certain Muslims have stood by what they have seen as being the truth and which they were willing to die for.
JESUS IS THE KING OF KINGS! Colossians 1: 16
Ogutu-TishOg M yes he did it, read Genesis 1:1 man! he CREATED the formulas!!!!!!!
Not seeing to the sun and only looking to skies and telling skies give us light and there is no sun does not undo the fact that there is sun and is covered to y due to Ur ignorance
@Ogutu-TishOg M well. God gave wisdom and knowledge to king Solomon and other people as well. These people have basically share wisdom and knowledge from god to others. If you read the book of Solomon, Solomon had Been given wisdom and knowledge of music, and science and much more. People around the world came to visit him for his knowledge and wisdom
AMEN!
Samuel, your qoute comes from a book written by a man who was NOT AUTHORISED by Jesus.
I wish this video was around when I was in Grade school and High School - I strongly believe it would have made me more interested and pay more attention in my Math classes.
This is nonsense. Math is a system humans have created based on our observations to explain patterns. The idea that one object placed next to another object, thus making 2 objects, is not a miracle nor does it imply any god was required for this, let alone a specific christian god. Your mist understanding of the concept of mathematics does not automatically make your irrational god claim somehow true.
I don't understand this argument. Surely maths is constructed around physics by humans in order to understand it. Like we count how many eggs are in a basket and give it an abstract value (say 12) . But it isn't a miracle that the number 12 perfectly describes the number of eggs. We just ascribe different abstract values to the quantities we visually perceive and end up with a system of numbers. Perhaps I am missing something?
@Oscar Perez yes, human minds it takes. Doesn’t take a gods minds
Oppy refuted this argument in his discussion with Craig. It collapses into an unexplained brute contingency or a "happy coincidence" which was the exact same criticism the theist was making of the naturalist. The theist's explanation is no better.
I'm no expert in any of this, but just to assume you are somewhat correct (I suspect Craig might have a different perspective)... it is possible we can run into a linguistic wall that seems like it results in an "unexplained brute contingency". However, the limitation is due to language constraints when attempting to be hyperprecise. It is somewhat like the difference between the quantum world and the macroscopic world. If you step back just a hair, the "happy coincidence" is a potential answer indeed, but certainly unsatisfying if that is the only explanation for the myriads of similar such fine-tuned conditions. If, in fact, there is a Mind behind it all, there are not just puzzle pieces placed together, but a meaningful picture that emerges.
One might respond with the analogy of the mountain climber when asked why she does so says 'because it is there." What a horribly unsatisfying retort. The climber does so because of the satisfaction that results from the success of the achievement. Now, you can probe asking about those feelings and eventually get down to dopamine, synapses, atoms, etc. and eventually get to quarks and quantum entanglement possibly. But the "Why?" will not be found down at that level - although I admit it will likely be involved. The "Why" will be found at the level of the person. Why does that person's mind think differently than someone else who is content with streams meandering through a valley?
Mathematics is "beautiful" only if there is a meaning to the word "beautiful". If it is beautiful, it can only be if there is a mind to perceive it as such. I'm glad to appreciate that there is both beauty and mathematics and their entanglement is the product of a Mind to which I also can relate as a creature.
@@msvvero There is still no explanation at the bottom for _why_ God chose to make _this_ universe with _these_ fine tuned constants as opposed to _another_ universe with different constants. It still ends up being a "happy coincidence" in the end.
@@resurrectionnerd Very good point. I agree. Yet, if that "happy coincidence" is the result of a Mind making a decision, I still want to relate more to the Mind than merely make use of the coincidence.
@@msvvero Bingo
@@msvvero I just want to add that Dr.Craig did respond to that exact point in his question of the week 2 weeks ago. www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/explaining-the-applicability-of-mathematics
Great stuff! You guys continue to continue to make a huge impact with these awesome videos.
The argument in-and-of-itself does not get you to Yahweh. The argument in-and-of-itself does not get you to Jesus.
@@TheMirabillis Numbers such as 1, 2, 3, ... exist. Who created them?
@@les2997 -- If they were created, then it does not logically get you to Yahweh or Jesus.
TheMirabillis But that’s not the claim.
@@Alarcahu --- The argument is pointless if it cannot logically get you to you to Jesus. At the end of the day, the Christian Theist has to make an argument for Christian Theism and a defence for Christian Theism. William Lane Craig’s argument just does not accomplish this.
At some point the Christian has make the leap of faith from Arguments to the pages of the Bible. In the end it all comes down to faith. You guys want to believe. Ok, but don’t try and pretend you have arguments that lead you straight to Jesus because none of you guys have got any.
this is getting ridiculous. mathematics has nothing to do with the existence of god. (for religious and non-religious people alike out there reading this, dont shy away from this. read on. im sorry if it makes you uncomfortable but religion needs to stop being such a touchy subject. feel that uncomfortable feeling and explore it. actually process what im saying and THINK). why do we give our amazing achievements to a big bearded man in the sky? mathematics works because it is a language humans have created as a way of understanding the universe as a whole. because the universe works the way it does, we can create labels that help us understand WHY. that is what the entire field of science is - finding the WHY of things and that is beautiful. the entire concept of a god existing is a way for us to feel satisfied. YOU want to be satisfied with knowing why we exist because the thought of NOT knowing scares you. ever since we as a species came about we wanted to know where we came from, and why we're here. whats the purpose of life? its OK to not know. its OK to let there be mystery. that is why we have to explore!! that is why we have to continue our scientific discoveries. notice how religions across the board stop you from questioning? the answer to 99% of questions raised like "well where does GOD come from? what was before god?" all get bullshit answers like "god is always and forever" and "god works in mysterious ways." how can you be satisfied with that? why does THAT satisfy you? people belonging and adding to the scientific community have worked hard, tirelessly to find where we come from and bringing up EXTREMELY logical points. the observations we have made that can explain the beginning of the universe and the theory of life are INCREDIBLE feats of human achievement and yet people continue to brush all this off and give credit to a magical man they have no proof of existing.
in the end, i understand why religion began. it was a way for us to put our ever-worrying minds at ease with the thought of a creator, a solidified purpose. but that was back then, now we have the proper tools to see this isn't true. so its time to move on and wake up. there is "believing in god" and "believing in miracles." there is not "believing in science." you do not believe, you trust. you explore you understand. you DO NOT (like this video entails) assume that anything that has yet to be discovered automatically gets filled in with "magic." the understanding of science and math is beautiful, and i implore anyone reading this, dont waste your time, soak up knowledge, multiply your understanding, and follow the rest of us on this exciting ride. we are only on this planet for so long, why not learn as much of its beautiful inner-workings as you can before its too late?
Да !
но чисто материалистский взгляд на мир имеет огромное количество вещей, которые не могут быть никак объяснены.
вы тоже в своем тексте отталкиваетесь от предположений. каждый в какой то мере отталкивается от предположений
Existence of God does NOT solve anything.
Because it's not a valid answer for human understanding.
Science wants to find objective truth, if it doesn't find one, we don't know it "yet". => no objective truth available? Put God in there! 10 out of 10 situations work! No more questions needed.
I used to be an agnostic. Why would I believe in God, I'm poor, my life sucks. People are starving, yatta. I went to college and got my degree in science. During my journey through calculus and physics... and later in engineering... It became clear that math, the math we are exposed to, is totally based an a set of LAWS and also DEFINITIONS and also many THEORIES. In order to go forward and pass a class, say in physics, you are asked to have faith in the theories in order to further the discussion under which all theoretical faith is the foundation. To me, Math is a description, it's a model. Models work, as long as the theory behind it is real. If you ask me now, "Does God exist?", I'd answer, "You bet your ass God exists. We are mere infants and the corporations of the world are destroying Mother". Let's talk about a line. By definition, it does not exist. A circle, doe not exist either. These are concepts and cannot be created by DEFINITION. You cannot make exact measurements. You cannot even make exact duplicate measurements, by definition of a line. Another question, PI. Circumference divided by twice the radius? If you cannot measure a radius, nor does a circle exist outside of theory, then you cannot measure the circumference either. PI, is purely imaginary, a close approximation that could not even be close enough. Math is useful, indeed, for engineering. But math is not worthy of Nature nor God.
Wow... God is REALLLY REALLLLY smart beyond our understanding
1:53...... that bass drop though
4:25 Premise one - False dichotomy fallacy, argument from ignorance fallacy.
Premise 2 - Evidence required that it is not an coincidence that laws of nature (including maths) exists the way they are.
Except that Math is not a law of nature. It is one of many languages used to describe the laws of nature. It has been invented rather than discovered which is in contrast to the laws of nature itself.
Usually I don't understand maths, but loved this video.
That's probably why you love this video.
A Volcano "God" in a Fictional STORY-- doesn't prove that the Volcano created Math. :)
@@davidh.503 What
@@ArKritz84 you don't?
@@silentghost751 not in the least.
Wigner was wrong to be astonished, if he was. As Galileo put it, the book of the universe is written in the language of math. Math is just a language we find useful to describe what is. Math has no causal power, as was said in the video. Thus, it is merely a description of what we observe. We have poets and philosophers such as Russel; his quote shown at the head of Wigner's article is beautiful prose, who can compose sublime prose and poetry describing the world around us. Mathematicians, sometimes, write proofs that have sublime aesthetic form and value. Sometimes mathematicians write ugly equations as do poor poets write ugly poems. Why be amazed and dumbfounded when a beautiful proof is composed? The universe exists as it is, whether humans find it beautiful or not. Better explanations for its structure and origin exist than just, "God did it that way because he liked it like that."
1. First Wigner was not wrong and your attempt at an answer only confirms that because you obviously never read his article on this issue given the criticism you give.
2. The universe could not be described by mathematics if it did not have a mathematical structure, why is the universe not just chaos, or why does it not have some primitive mathematical structure that can only be described by the simplest arithmetic; the answer to theism is the lottery, that is, according to atheistic logic, we should not be surprised when something works well even though it is extremely unlikely.
3. Aesthetics have nothing to do with this argument (another indicator of how much you don't understand the argument)
0:22 quotes Galileo that "Math is a language"
procedes to not understand that "Math is a language"
Orbital Dew: Misquotes Galileo, even though he, presumably, JUST HEARD the statement he misquoted; then, misspells 'proceeds'; then, runs his "mouth" about someone-else's "understanding" of a statement that he himself has just misquoted; then, commits the same misquotation AGAIN. 😏😉😜
@QuantumRat2005 I don't think that the Atomized Satellite is CAPABLE of learning math to that degree. And, of course, Misty's cranial-insufficiencies aren't surprising: The VAST MAJORITY of self-identifying "atheists" that one encounters are just ill-informed, pseudo-intellectual science fan- boys/girls with emotional-health issues (anger-issues; daddy-issues; autism-spectrum disorders; delusions of persecution.....). 😉😜
No doubt...lol
th-cam.com/video/gNQkSJXUzjo/w-d-xo.html
Galatians 1: 6 I am astonished that you have so quickly turned away from the One Who called you into the love of Messiah, to another message;7 Not that there is any other glad tidings, just that there are some who trouble you, and are trying to pervert the message of the Messiah.8 But even if we, or a malak from heaven, should preach a +message other than what we preached to you: May he be accursed!9 As we have already said, so I now say again: If any man preaches any message to you contrary to or different from what you have received from us: May he be accursed!10 So now, who am I trying to please man, or Father YAHweh? Do I seek to be a man-pleaser? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of the Messiah! 11 But I point out to you, brothers, that the message preached by me is not something any man invented.12 For I neither received it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Father YAHweh's Resurrected Son. May Father YAHweh bless your understanding.
Is the argument presented at 4:24 valid logically? It takes the form "If A then B. Not B. Therefore not A." Is that valid?
Yes, that is called modus tollens. It works because (A → B) is equivalent to (¬B → ¬A).
@@ChrisBandyJazz Thanks!
I noticed that. No, it is not a valid argument. Hitler was a Nazi. Hitler was a vegetarian. Therefore all vegetarians are Nazis.
@@PappyGunn Hey Pappy. You must have been misinformed. Your argument goes like this:
1. H ∈ N
2. H ∈ V
3. V ⊂ N (1, 2)
That's invalid. (3) doesn't follow from (1) and (2). Just because Hitler is an element of both Nazis and vegetarians doesn't mean that vegetarians are a subset of Nazis. There could still be other vegetarians that aren't Nazis, even though Hitler is both.
On the other hand, the video's argument goes like this (G = God exists; MHC = mathematics is a happy coincidence):
1. ¬G → MHC
2. ¬MHC
3. ¬¬G (1, 2)
4. G (3)
The video's argument is valid. (3) follows from (1) and (2) because of modus tollens. (4) follows from (3) because of a double negative. The video just abbreviates the syllogism by removing (3), which is perfectly fine since (4) still eventually follows from (1) and (2).
@@PappyGunn Yea - that is not how this argument works at all. The argument is absolutely 100% logically valid. The question is whether the 2 premises are more likely true than false.
You say that naturalists do not have a reasonable explanation when you do not have a reasonable explanation either. You are jumping to conclusions on certain mathematical hypotheticals that don’t truly exist being evidence for God? Then, you assume that the universe must have a design because you simply dislike the other possibility. You have a lot of claims in this video that are not backed up when it comes to the existence of God.
Are we going to conflate cognition and reality ?
4:25 - ....Okay, you want to explain to us WHY mathematics isn't just a happy coincidence?
Bobsheaux - yeah, I’m with you I that. It just does not sit well with me. There are plenty of good arguments for the existence of God, but this is not one of them.
Well mathematics is at its roots a way of predicting events. You can only predict events, however, if they follow a structured pattern. Mathematics essentially describes those patterns so that we as humans can make use of them. There is no naturalistic reason why these “patterns” such as the law of gravity, the general theory of relativity, and so on would ever be in place. How can a series of chemical reactions result in the seemingly designed and structured natural laws we see. Why doesn’t everything just happen at random, but rather in a predictable manner? Someone (God) had to have put these patterns in place for us to realize. In summary, mathematics would not be possible without a God to create the laws that mathematics describes.
Rick in Texas
I wish I would see at least one good argument for god’s existence! All I see is “it is easier than actually searching for answers therefore god” or “it is scary otherwise therefore god” or “I want there to be an afterlife and an intrinsic meaning for my existence therefore god”. So pathetic...
Chris Mahn
Why do you attribute “will” to the reason of everything being in order? Why do you ask “someone” instead of “something”? Why do you think it was intentionally done and not “just so happened”?
There is no “order” in quantum physics for example - most of things “just happen” there - so by your logic nobody created the particles as they act too chaotically!
@@chrismahn9632
Math is used to describe natural laws, scientific ideas and models. The model then makes predictions, not mathematics.
This was so well done. Can you elaborate on how it was made? What applications were used? Thanks
Looks like a good dose of Adobe After Effects/Photoshop/illustrator and for the 3D elements probably Cinema 4d (but could be Maya or Lightwave or 3D Studio MAX)
these are created by zangmeister: th-cam.com/video/EE76nwimuT0/w-d-xo.html
Well it was made in 6 days. 6 24-hour applications that were each seen as good ;-)
William Lane Craig has been an inspiration to me for years and I have started my own channel, in part, because him! Thanks WLC!
That's awesome!
That’s awesome!
That's great we need more people like Dr. Craig!
Sweet! Love it!
Awesome! Good for you man!
This video is really biased and filled with little incorrect assumptions. 1) Why should a omnipotent and omniscient being that created the universe according to his plan be a more reasonable answer than saying that only what we can see scientifically exist?
2) The complex numbers are used in varius branch of physics, like i in quantum mechanics.
3) The "mathematical" argument is one gigantic flaw: mathematics applies to our physics because we built those models using mathematics. It's not a coincidence, it's that we created mathematics designing in our minds an ideal universe (basing it to our observations) and than used it to describe the real one using physics.
There is so much wrong here I don't know where to start.
1. Why God is better explained, because coincidence is the only alternative to theism and it obviously doesn't work.
2. Complex numbers apply to the real world, Craig doesn't deny that.
3. This is a fictionalist view of mathematics that is not supported by almost any philosopher, however it obviously does not work, if the universe was just chaos you could not describe it mathematically, if it had a primitive mathematical structure you could describe it perhaps with some primitive mathematics like arithmetic but no and with an elegant as we describe why the universe has such an incredible mathematical structure, the answer to atheism is only coincidence.
I don’t think I quite understand premise 2 at 4:38. Doesn’t it beg the question?
It doesn't beg the question because there's a reason to think it is more plausibly true than its negation, namely the fact that the applicability of mathematics by chance alone is so improbable as to be irrational to affirm. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos That makes sense. I appreciate the response.
As an agnostic, I admit that the "unreasonable effectivness of mathematics" is what has led to so many modern mathematicians becoming neo-platonists. That is to say, they believe abstract entities exist concretely. You also bring up Bertrand Russell, who's life work in mathematical logic was intended to solve this problem by grounding mathematics in logic. Otherwise known as Logicism. However, you fail to mention why Russell's project failed. Because Gödel, in his two incompleteness theorems, proved that mathematical systems are inherently limited in the following ways: 1. For any consistent formal system, there are mathematical statments in the system that cannot be proven nor disproven from within the system itself. 2. For any formal system, the consistency of the system (lack of logical contradictions) cannot be proven from within the system.
This profoundly limits mathematical systems. It's my belief that, had Russell actually proven Logicism, you would have a much stronger argument for the existence of God. Because mathematics has within it infinitely contradictory system, like euclidian and hyperbolic geometries to name one example. And as Gödel showed, none of the mathematical systems, like the many set theories modern mathematicians use, can be both complete and consistent. So none of which seem to be the perfect system upon which God based the universe. It is unlikely God created infinite systems, each contradicting one another, and based the universe of that. Some, like Russell, believe Logic is the perfect system, but the fact that mathematics is not one thing, that it contains within it infinite logically contradictory systems, each containing statments which cannot be proved or disproved within them, seems to prove just about the as difinitively as possible that mathematics is not the perfect system you make it out to be.
If you want a concrete example of a problem in mathematics that cannot be proven or disproven, look up the "Continuum Hypothesis" which Gödel first proven (indipendent of the incompletness theorems) that the negation of the hypothesis cannot be proven true in 1940. But then in 1963 it was proved by Paul Cohen that the hypothesis cannot be proven true either. Thus the Continuum Hypothesis cannot be proven true or false in standard set theory, so it is called "independent", exemplifying Gödels first incompleteness theorem.
@BLACK LIVES AGAINST GAYS As I said, my point is that Mathematics is not one thing. It is many, many different systems, each with axioms that contradict other mathematical systems, each, if consistent, having statements unable to be either proven or disproven, and each unable to prove their own consistency.
Mathematics is not the system upon which God based creation because it is very much not one thing.
@@Michael-Hammerschmidt if it isn't "one thing" then why is it called by one name? *Mathematics*
@@user-ei9ns9hq6b There is a reason "Mathematics" is plural lol
@Roof Korean If all you guys have to add to the discussion is "if it isn't "one thing" then why is it called by one name?" then we have nothing further to discuss.
In a similar conversation, I made the following comments (slightly edited)-
Dr. Robert Kuhn in his ‘Closer to Truth’ interviews has done a lot of fascinating work on this topic, i.e., math and reality. One is his interview of Dr. Hossenfelder (see th-cam.com/video/QUWbe5KGaQY/w-d-xo.html). I admire Dr. Hossenfelder's candor in admitting that she neither asks nor likes the 'why?' questions that Dr. Kuhn raises. Obviously, because it leads to a terrain that's outside of science proper-an area where, as a scientist, she feels she’s no longer competent to say anything that would be of any real weight.
Kuhn has asked this question to top mathematicians and theoretical physicists, apparently not getting satisfactory answers. But perhaps he should go back to Wigner and take seriously his language. Wigner describes this "unreasonableness" as a "miracle" and as a "gift" that we should simply be thankful for. These terms are pregnant with metaphysical-even theological!-implications.
When putting the question to Edward Witten (multi-awarded theoretical physicist and mathematician), he said something that, IMO, should be taken with careful thought; he said it's "uncanny" because "it's as if the universe has been created by a mathematician.” Dr. Kuhn responded with a nervous laugh and said, "that goes into a whole other area"-an area outside the empirical and into metaphysics and theology, an area that he explores but doesn't really like. (See Edward Witten - Why the ‘Unreasonable Effectiveness’ of Mathematics, starting at 1m th-cam.com/video/1-Zl9o7I4Fo/w-d-xo.html)
But like Einstein's 'superior reasoning power' as behind the beauty and comprehensibility of the cosmos, the idea that a Mind is the source of the beauty of the cosmos is a very rational inference based on what is empirically observed. As agnostic Sir Fred Hoyle grudgingly said that a "common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."
Some ancient Greek thinkers posited the Logos, the Universal Reason that governed the order and structure of the cosmos. In Christian thought, John states that this Logos is the Word (creative wisdom and power) of God instantiated and incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ (see John 1:1-14).
Though neither a complete nor perfect explanation, a mathematical Mind as the source of the “miracle” of the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" (Wigner’s very words) makes more sense and has more explanatory power than either a brute fact assertion that it's just the way it is and that there's no reason for it, or attributing it as a mere coincidence.
But one could always reject mathematical realism and ontologically deny any objective reality to math, and that math is simply a creation of our minds and not something we discover out there in nature. But then many would disagree. Authorities such as Penrose, Tegmark, et. al. argue that there’s an entire Platonic world filled with mathematical objects that we discover (although we invent the language we use to describe what we discover).
Another is Kuhn’s interview of Mlodinov (see th-cam.com/video/uqGbn4b3LPM/w-d-xo.html). And wow, Mlodinov simply echoes Wigner himself and understands the issues as Wigner himself did. Hence this unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is MIRACULOUS, and as Wigner added, a GIFT we should all be thankful for. But then these descriptions cry out for an explanation, at least offer a reasonable inference. So, brute fact-no reason? Coincidence (what a jackpot!)? Multiverse (extravagant violation of the law of parsimony!)? Or inferring a single, simple mathematical MIND doing the math behind the universe (Einstein's 'superior reasoning power')-or as Mlodinov said at the end of the clip, God. Now that's a pretty rational inference. Only those committed to the ideology of reductive naturalism will find that unacceptable, not on the basis of the data but on dogma.
I find it really interesting people can make the comment that math is a language we use to describe things we discover. Yet at the same time, scientist use and rely on math to make many calculations including launching a rocket, predicting the weather, predicting the location of planets. Feels like there's a disconnect of understanding there.
@@JenYangLim I'm not sure I understand your point but it seems you're making a distinction without a difference. If you were to say " scientists use and rely on language to make many calculations...." would that change the reality in any way? Math is a universal language that simplifies and makes accurate the communication of the laws of physics, chemistry, finance etc for the use of it's practitioners. Similarly musical notation simplifies the communication of key, tone, note, beat and measure for the use of musicians. In each realm there is remarkable congruence between the language used and the thing described - if the grammar and spelling is correct.
@@gordonepema722 I just making an observation where few people on here are saying that Math is just a language used to describe what we understand our known universe. As a statistician, I know that math can be used to accurately predict many events and thus is not merely a language used to understand what we have. But there are actual proper Laws governing such things. Thus Einstein's observation of there being a creator. It is too accurate to say it is by sheer coincidence.
@@JenYangLim "I know that math can be used to accurately predict many events and thus is not merely a language used to understand what we have"
Can you not do the same thing with a natural language?
Please, what video editor do you use?
Adobe After Effects
Mathematics isn't really the study of numbers and equations, it's a study of the rules that govern them, and ultimately about the conclusions of conditional logic with respect to quantifiable objects. The reason why math models nature so well is ultimately because the universe respects the principle of causality, and why that's the case is where we ought to turn our attention to our amazing creator.
One question I had though is that, aren't numbers supposed to be neccessary? Even if there is a Platonic realm of abstract objects, wouldn't those objects neccessarily have to exist in all possible worlds, including ours?
So it seems that as long as math neccessarily exists, every physical world has to have applicable mathematics, otherwise they wouldn't be neccessary
not really. There is nothing in mathematics which talks about actual existence of the frameworks we work in. We at most prove whether within these frameworks certain structures exists -> and given we never prove the actual existence of the frameworks, these existence proofs are at best about ‘relative existence‘.
Ugh, mathematics is used to describe reality because it was discovered that reality was describable as such. Realizing you can describe something a certain way isn't a miracle, it's just you coming to understand the universe a bit better. Unless you're saying it's a miracle that you noticed something about the world around you... oof.
That said, even IF this universe in which we all reside was indeed created by a "god", you still have no proof it was YOUR god, let alone any proof of ANY god.
The point of this was not to posit any particular god, rather to show that there’s a mind behind it all. In that regard it was very successful.
@@1977Jackofalltrades No mind behind it all was demonstrated. Only the presumption that their is one was asserted without evidence to support the claim.
Math is simply what humans invented and use to describe what we observe. As we observe new things we add to math to describe it as needed. A god has nothing to do with it.
@@1977Jackofalltrades No one has ever demonstrated that a mind is anything other than a collection of complex electrochemical processes taking place in a living brain. Minds didn't objectively exist until brains evolved enough complexity to produce them. The reason that we do not answer the "why" questions is because "why" questions presuppose agency and no agency is objectively evident. The "logical" argument offered here boils down to "God is required therefore God exists." This is a very tight circle.
@Captain James T. Kirk I don't have anything to disprove. You have to present evidence to support your claim that God exists for me to be able to examine said evidence and determine if it supports it or not. By your own admission here you know you have no evidence and are just making the claim baselessly. Thus their is nothing to disprove. Make-believe isn't reality.
@Captain James T. Kirk Cannot disprove him, but can disprove the Bible that points to him, which is a piece of evidence theist actively point to in most cases.
There are multiple fields of science that mutually agrees there is no global flood amongst having Chinese empires running longer than when the flood supposedly had happened by Young Earth Creationist claims.
Evolution, natural selection, and the diversity of life disproves the flood because it's impossible for so many creatures to remotely survive in such a small space on the ark and then spread into the life it is today.
Don't forget to mention how all those creatures got back home, like the koala after leaving the ark IF it was ever possible, since they left 0 migratory tracks.
@freddan6fly well then, did man create mathematics or is mathematics the discovery of natural laws.
I believe mathematics existed with and during the creation of the universe, mathematics is a byproduct of intelligence. Therefore there is nontangle intelligence in the universe... Wither we conclude it as God or not. Intelligence exists in the construction of the universe.
Mathematics is a by-product of intelligence yes... The intelligence if man. Math was invented to model patterns discovered in the nature of reality. It's no surprise that math does what it was invented to do. It's also no surprise that the patterns found in the nature of reality are consistent with reality, because reality will always be consistent with reality.
Mathematics is a defined relationship. God is all about relationship.
this is what happens when you aren't rigorous in your speculation. Mathematics fits because we understand things mathematically.
Didn't they address this at 2:10?
@@MrDoctorSchultz No.
@@sunilrampuria7906 He seems to be very clear that we do not understand why mathematics works as well as it does. If it was because we understand things mathematically, why would he say this?
@@MrDoctorSchultz It was a mistake from his part. Just because he won a Noble prize doesn't mean that everything he says is correct. We do understand why mathematics work the way it works. You may read his "misconstrued" paper and you may also think about the whole thing by yourself instead of just trusting some stranger like me. You may also want to read Nietzsche's essay "On truth and lies in a nonmoral sense".
@@sunilrampuria7906 What is the reason mathematics works the way it does?
This doesnt feel right. Can you explain why it is not a happy coincidence ? I liked the previous arguments, but this seems not convincing to me...
1 If Zeus does not exist, the applicability of mathematics is just a happy coincidence.
2 But the applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence.
3 Therefore, Zeus exists. 4:38
It does not logically follow that because math works a God exists. It also does not logically follow that math wouldn't work if a God doesn't exist. 1+1=2 regardless of whether a deity exists. If you think otherwise, provide evidence that math couldn't work or wouldn't exist without a God. Math is not logically dependent on a God. If one is to use God as an explanation for why math exists and why it works, one would first need to show that a deity exists and that deity has not only the ability to create math where there wasn't math before but then did in fact create math (is that even logically possible for math to not exist and be created? Where is the evidence for math not existing and then coming into existence? Math is discovered, not created.) Otherwise you are engaging in illogical circular reasoning. We know God exists because math works. And why does math work? Because God exists. And how do we know that God exists? Because math works.
The problem with your syllogism is that it identifies the entity as Zeus. That isn't what these Christians are arguing. They are arguing God exists. So your syllogism doesn't reflect what they are arguing for. Thats how it fails.
The argument is that the rationality of mathematics works better under theism then under atheism. It does not prove God exists but just makes math more likely under theism then under atheism.
I think what your missing is that they aren't saying that math can or cannot work under theism or a "happy coincidence," but why does math exist at all, and why should it be rational?
Your also wrong that one must show a deity exists first. That would be putting the cart before the earth. This argument is made in order to demonstrate that there is a rational reason to believe he does. The whole point of the argument is to do what your claiming needs to be done prior. That is illogical. It doesn't make sense.
This is an inductive argument but you are treating it like a deductive argument and that is the flaw in your post David.
@@blusheep2 "The problem with your syllogism is that it identifies the entity as Zeus. That isn't what these Christians are arguing. They are arguing God exists. So your syllogism doesn't reflect what they are arguing for. Thats how it fails."
I figure most Christians watching this video will see the above argument as evidence that their particular God exists, not just the general idea of a God. So, I replaced the word "God" with "Zeus" to point out the unreasonableness of saying that it argues for a particular deity. It also shows that this argument for God's existence could be used to support any number of non-existent Gods that Christians don't believe in. If this argument is insufficient to convince someone to believe in Zeus it is also insufficient to convince someone that the Christian God exists.
"The argument is that the rationality of mathematics works better under theism then under atheism. It does not prove God exists but just makes math more likely under theism then under atheism."
I disagree. God is irrelevant to the question of mathematics. Saying that math is more likely under theism implies that God created numbers and math. That is supposedly why mathematics leads back to God. If one is saying God created math that is also saying that math can be created. However, math is discovered not created out of nothing. Additionally, before the Christian God supposedly created math did He not exist already exist as 1 God in 3 persons according to Christians? That is numbers right there. How could God exist as 1 God in 3 persons and create math later? Logically, God must exist in order to create math. And God existing as an expression of numbers means math must be as old as God, according to those who believe in God. Math cannot be created by a non--existent God. So it is illogical to say that God created math and numbers. Additionally, in order for math to be created it first must not exist, then the act of creation happens, and then math is created. I have no good reason to think that math and numbers never existed and then suddenly came into existence. If someone truly believes that math at one point did not exist, they would need to provide a good argument for that.
"Your also wrong that one must show a deity exists first. That would be putting the cart before the earth. This argument is made in order to demonstrate that there is a rational reason to believe he does. The whole point of the argument is to do what your claiming needs to be done prior. That is illogical. It doesn't make sense."
Perhaps you misunderstand my argument. I'm critiquing the argument that God created math. In order for God to create math, God would first have to exist. Afterall, math can't be created by a non-existent deity. So God's existence is a sub-premise to the premise "God created math." You need to show that the sub-premise "God exists" is true before you can then say that not only does God exist he also has the ability to create math where there was none before. Not only is capable of it but did in fact do it.
"This is an inductive argument but you are treating it like a deductive argument and that is the flaw in your post David."
I'm aware that this is a inductive argument but that's no reason to not point out the logical errors. I give you credit that you showed me that perhaps I did not word my previous post in a way that is clear. I hope that this post offers more clarity on what I was trying to say in my previous post. Have a good day.
If you ask me "what is 25695378x367874334?", I would say that I didn't know. If you were to say "I think it is 4" I would say that didn't make sense. Your response would be "well at least I have an answer"
Just because you have an answer, while the opponent doesn't, doesn't mean your answer is right
It does .ean you are closer to the answer than your opponent.
@@randyshephard8257 Just because you're closer to being right doesn't mean you are correct. If Jonathan then guessed 964482964644785 as a possibility to refute 4 he is now closer to an actual answer, it's wrong, but closer. Taking more time to learn it would yield a more accurate answer but theist stay on the same answer 'god did it' or '4' which by a scientific standards isn't a strong argument.
@@jarrodmazzacca1911 the answer is closer than your opponent.
@@jarrodmazzacca1911 you can take all the time you want. U rather have a wrong answer than not have an answer.
@@jarrodmazzacca1911 and i never said i was correct. I said im closer to being correct than you are
The lack of logic in this video is astonishing.
What lack of logic?
No offence, but the lack of your understanding of logic is maybe the astonishing thing here.
The logic is fine, the philosophical justification of the premises is weak, though.
Actually it isn't illogical at all. The video just dramatically simplified the concept and the reasoning behind it so that everyone can understand it.
Logic and math are properties of mind , the universe is build in math language , it's inevitable , the universe came from the mind of God .
Maths (like scientific laws) are made by us, to describe relationships in reality.
Being amazed that they do so effectively is childish.
We definitely made gravity and 1+1 = 2 and not discovered. Definitely.
@@johnemmanuel1426 No, we didn't "make" gravity. Don't be asinine.
We discovered the effect we call gravity - and then we made the law of gravity to describe said effect.
Do not mistake the map (the law) for the place (the effect).
1+1=2 is entirely made up by us.
We defined what "1" means, then what "2" means, then we defined what "+" means and finally what "=" means.
Like I said, laws(and maths) are just descriptions of relationships in reality.
You do understand that scientific laws are descriptive, not proscriptive, right?
@@Steelmage99 we didn’t make any laws or mathematical actions. We DISCOVERED THEM. The symbols were made up by us yes, but the symbols are not math. Are you really telling me that before we existed, when 1 object and another 1 object came together, they didn’t make 2 objects? Scientific laws are discovered as well, they were already here before we existed. I’m not talking about the map itself as portrayed in your analogy rather I’m talking about what the map is saying.
@@johnemmanuel1426
"we didn’t make any laws or mathematical actions."
Yes, we did. You're still mistaking the map for the place.
"We DISCOVERED THEM."
No, we discovered that which the laws describe. You're still mistaking the map for the place.
" Scientific laws are discovered as well, they were already here before we existed."
No, what the laws _describe_ was already here. You're still mistaking the map for the place.
"I’m not talking about the map itself as portrayed in your analogy rather I’m talking about what the map is saying."
That's the same thing.
The difference is between the map and what the map describes.
@@Steelmage99 You are talking about the words itself and not what it describes. I’m talking about what the words describe and not the words itself. I’m talking about the place and not the map. When I say Disney World, I’m not talking about the word “Disney World”, I’m talking about the place Disney World. Thats the analogy.
Watched the video. Didn't see any mathematical equation ending with = god
Mathematics and physics are my favorite subjects. I believe they describe the universe precisely.
-A humble aerospace engineering student and theist.
Theist? Why not Christ? You're missing out. th-cam.com/video/ZS3thuSHUYg/w-d-xo.html
It's easy to describe the universe when you are making up the language as you go.
@@gctcauto thing is through the mathematics/law to describe the universe, they are able to predict many things that were previously unknown. Ie, location of nepture, theory of relativity, expansion of the universe and so on. So its not only a descriptive language.
Can i talk With you bro ?
How school going bro?
Wow what a profound misunderstanding of what Mathematics is. Math is a human invention to describe our natural world. So surprise surprise when it describes the natural world. If it does not describe our natural world we revise the math. This whole argument of the video.... if you have 2 oranges on a table and add 2 more... you have 4 oranges.... MUST BE GOD!!!! This must be the most lazy scholarship I have seen! Christian Apologists are really gasping for air!
While I do agree that the naturalist position has been very much simplified, or even misrepresented, what you write is just nonsensical.
Firstly, the idea that mathematics has been invented to describe the natural world is a half truth at best. While it is true that things like diff geo very much derive from an idealisation of reality, that just isn’t true for many other things in mathematics.
Secondly, the idea that mathematics is „revised“ is beyond stupid. Mathematics is *proven*. It literally can not be revised, *especially* not through observation. Do you have any idea what mathematics even is?
Thirdly, very often mathematics *precedes* physics. Functional analysis was developed to study partial differential equations, now it is used to describe QM. Just like Relativity relied on notions of non-Euclidean geometry. This should tell you that the naturalist has to answer FAR harder questions and that your answer is no answer to the problem at all.
@@jonassattler4489
Firstly, mathematic fields are interconnected : you may think that some points are not relevant regarding the description of reality, but it does indirectly. Vectorial spaces of infinite dimension, for example, are useful when it comes to functional analysis, as they provide the right frame to solve some problems. Even if they are not "real", they had been defined so that they can be used to ultimately solve real world problems.
Secondly, the mathematics is as proven as it is invented / revised. Mathematics are not about finding the right answer, but finding the right question. Take Newton and Leibniz for example : they invented the derivative, sort of. Thing is, the definition they proposed was not rigorous at all. Leibniz defined the dx as the smallest strictly positive real number, without even proving its existence. Though such a definition may be meaningful in a different mathematical field, the definition of the real set does not allow that.
Cauchy and Weirstrass came with a different but rigorous way to define the derivative of a function which is used today and rely on limits. While each of these mathematicians had the same intuition on what a derivative could be, they came with two different ways to define it : only Cauchy and Weirstrass reformulated the question in a rigorous way. In other word, mathematical definitions are not arse-pulled : they are the fruit of progressive labor and revision until finding the most practical one. The same goes for the set theory and the category theory : the category theory was meant to replace the set theory as the foundation of mathematics.
I have no objection against your third point, although I do not understand where you are getting at.
This entire comment demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of mathematics as well as this video and is essentially a strawman.
Ok, you convinced me.
You are right Odin has created a very great universe
IoDavide1 Pagans do not believe that Odin is the creator of the universe, he is just another part of it. Please actually learn a bit about the subject before trying to be witty.
Your comment is funny. Odin is a "particular" God and what the video is talking about is God as a "conception".
Md.Bahroz Babur Ali No you don’t understand, he believes that Odin is the one true God, stop assuming that he believes in the entire Norse pantheon, there is way too much evidence proving that what they supposedly govern is just natural causes.
@@calebelliott2629 Did you even understand my argument? Your mock was irrelevant.
@@jonassattler4489 what's wrong about your sense of sarcasm?
Argument is fallacious...
Argument from ignorance
Black and white fallacy
Ah I knew it was a Black and White fallacy, didn’t remember the argument from ignorance one.
Mathematics proves god does not exist.
God created mathematics so:
Let a + b = c, i.e. a = 1, b = 2, c is therefore 3.
multiply both sides of this equation by (a - c)
which gives (a - c)(a + b) = c(a - c),
which results in a² + ab - ac - bc = ac - c²,
adding bc to both sides gives a² +ab - ac -bc + bc = ac + bc - c² ,
factorising gives a(a + b - c) = c(a + b - c),
terms in the brackets cancel therefore a = c and therefore god is flawed and does not exist.
(T.I.C.)
@Zain Shaikh Google T.I.C.
@Zain Shaikh In the first line a = 1, b = 2 therefore c = 3 and after a few legitemate mathematical operations we see that a = c how can this be true?
@@JimTaylor42 "Yeah"; except that if we already know the values/proportions of 'a', 'b', and 'c', you DON'T multiply hidden (letter-represented) terms; you DO do the work within the parentheses (simple crunching of numbers) FIRST. The CORRECT representation of YOUR proposal is:
a = 1
b = 2
c = 3
'a + b = c' represents '1 + 2 =3'.
'a - c' represents '1 - 3'; which comes out to negative-2.
So, '(a - c)(a + b) = c(a - c)' represents '-2(3) = -2(3)'; which comes out to '6 = 6'; which is correct and balanced.
"Atheists" are *SO* fulla-"scat"..... 😏😉😜
@@johnharrison6745 What you failed to notice is that in the process I was cancelling out two zeros? i.e. a + b - c = 0. 0 divided by 0 is not allowed or is indeterminate. Did you not notice at the end of my comment (T.I.C.) which stands for Tongue In Cheek.
@@JimTaylor42 No; I didn't fail to notice anything; and, I figured that 'T.I.C.' stood-for 'Trigonometry Invalidates Creationism', or some other "scat" that misotheists like to consume and spew. [most of them are intentionally-ill-informed science-fanboys; makes sense that they'd be mathematician-air-assumers too 😜] Regardless; your "process" was inappropriate/incorrect regarding the information and "terms" given. 😁 [p.s.: anti-theists/New-Atheists are STILL just damaged pseudo-intellectuals; and "humanism" is STILL just pseudo-morality for the emotionally-incontinent, wishful-"thinking" Pollyanna's of the world. (timely reference there; considering all the 'Karen's' and 'Sheila's' one hears-of today)]😁
I am a theist and like philosophical arguments for the existence of God (not that I need them). Nonetheless, you did not prove either premise. That syllogism needs a lot more fleshing out.
Not understanding why math works is not an argument for god.......
Humans invented the Mathematics to describe the universe. There's a reason you will not have advanced mathematics in the Bible. They hadn't been invented yet.
Brandon Shaver But very often mathematics predates the physics which uses the mathematics to describe reality. Why don’t physicists have to invent new mathematics for every new discovery in physics?
@Neil Graham What do you think a universe without order would look like and why would you expect to find yourself in any other universe then the one you’re in?
@SAMURAI 武士 Except that humans assigned the values to numbers.
There is no 2+2 if there are no values assigned to 2.
@@jonassattler4489 That the predictable of physics. We can use our tool of math to make predictions. A predictability that isn't in the Bible. Then Joshua spoke to the Lord on the day when the Lord delivered the Amorites before the children of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel: ‘Sun, stand still [dom] upon Gibeon; and you, Moon, in the valley of Ayalon.’” (Joshua 10:12).
Also, the Bible get the movements of the sun and earth wrong. God would have had the stop the earth not the sun.
But why? Mathematics is an epistemological tool for understanding reality. We have discovered mathematical laws painstakingly over millenia.
We have a natural need to understand nature and use it for survival. Mathematics is a means of doing so. It reflects reality because we are part of the reality it describes. Equally, one might say language is a proof of god because it can be used to describe reality.
Language doesn’t relate to actual physical processes it just describes them mathematics apply and shockingly in an accurate manner , the question is why abstract thoughts apply accurately to physical tangible entities ? Don’t straw man the argument friend the logical unbiased conclusion is a mind independent from it that’s after you trim down the fallacies along your journey such as the infinite regression but you’ll most certainly climb the mountain of knowledge and a band of theologians will welcome you like it or not my friend like it or not
@@gwledosman9744 religious beliefs is the king of all fallacies
@@abel3557 why do you say that ? Show me how prove it ? Your an atheist and if your really honest or educated about it you would commit suicide or have a very depressed look into life
@@abel3557 why do you say that ? Show me how prove it ? Your an atheist and if your really honest or educated about it you would commit suicide or have a very depressed look into life
I have no problem with personal choice for theism but this doesn't make sense as an argument. All the supposedly mind-blowing examples listed are really just a repetition of the idea that if you pick up one apple, then another, you hold two apples. Every time you check, they will be two apples. Does anyone think that this proves the existence of God? Don't make us laugh.
Three major points to note:
1. This is a clear God-of-the-gaps argument. We don't know "why" mathematics works for physical predictions, hence God makes it so. Transparently obviously, hilariously in fact, fallacious.
2. Asking "why" math applies to the universe implies that it could somehow have been otherwise. Can someone imagine a universe that had no mathematical conformity? You might at first think so, but you would quickly realize that such a universe would not be able to have any properties at all, because the very logic of 2 =/= 1 (a mathematical notion) would become meaningless. If numbers and logic (i.e. mathematics) do not apply to the reality in which we exist, then reality itself holds no conformity to logic itself and hence the existence of properties - any properties at all - are incoherent and meaningless. The very notion of "property" implies a continuous and unchanging persistent state of some aspect of reality, which includes, for example, intrinsic ordinal properties (i.e. "property" itself is singular [i.e. "one"] whereas "properties" is plural [i.e. "any positive integer besides one"]). You just can't get outside of mathematics and logic conceptually and hence to hypothesize counterexamples is meaningless, and anyone who thinks you can is performing sleight of hand, just as surely as anybody who claims a square circle could exist is wrong. If you want to refute this point, then give me a hypothetical conceptual counterexample of any aspect of a universe that could somehow not be governed by mathematics, and explain to me how that is different from our universe. You won't be able to do it because logic binds us all ontologically. This actually applies to God himself as well, which brings us to the third point.
3. The fallacy becomes incredibly obvious towards the end of the video. It's so obvious that it's really not worthy of the likes of a philosopher like WLC. If God could have designed a universe that doesn't conform to mathematics, that means there is an aspect to his own existence that at least, in principle, could not conform to mathematics, and still exist. Which is an absurd suggestion that nobody worth listening to takes seriously. Would you bother to argue with someone who said that rectangular triangles (i.e. a geometric figure of straight lines whose internal angles sum to both 360 and 180 degrees) could exist, either in the abstract or in the physical, even in an alternate universe? You wouldn't bother. But in order for this argument to work it would have to be the case that God could have designed such a universe, because the argument is suggesting that it's not just a "happy coincidence" math applies to our universe (which implies that it could have been some other way). It's not a coincidence all right, but it has nothing to do with some choice an agent makes, because it's logically impossible to get outside of math and logic in the first place.
People don't seem to get this simple point. Invoking God as the ultimate and full explanation to explain any singular permanent feature of the universe doesn't work because, ultimately, there are some necessary properties (or property) of reality that God does not control. They are necessary properties of reality and it couldn't be any other way, hence, whatever these properties are, they cannot be ultimately attributed to God, because God's existence is, in fact, attributable to them (not the other way around). Once this is realized it is easy to understand that arguing this way doesn't make any sense because whatever fundamental properties that make something "necessary" can be equally hypothesized to apply to either a world with God or a world without God.
It sounds to me like you've got God boxed in to some pretty specific rules and ideals...
"This actually applies to God himself as well, which brings us to the third point." That's new to me. Do you have a peer reviewed article or a scientific journal detailing the findings on this?
"because it's logically impossible to get outside of math and logic in the first place." This is not inconsistent with God, because he created them.
"because, ultimately, there are some necessary properties (or property) of reality that God does not control." I'm curious on which properties you would claim God does not control or created?
"They are necessary properties of reality and it couldn't be any other way, hence, whatever these properties are, they cannot be ultimately attributed to God, because God's existence is, in fact, attributable to them (not the other way around)." Same as the one above. Such as?
I think his argument was that with everything so perfectly in place, like what you said on how logic binds us, there has to be a God out there. Think of what you just said, why does logic have to bind us? Who makes that rule/logic anyways? There's a reason even Einstein believe that there's a God out there due to there being such a logical and mathematical framework that describe our material world. And also the reason the nobel prize winner claim it is a miracle that math applies so perfectly.
@@haroldbecker81 God created logic? God created math? I'm not sure you thought about that. When you say "God created logic" what exactly do you mean? Because when you say that, that implies that there is some aspect outside of reality in which "logic" could not apply. This would imply that in that aspect of reality square circles could exist. Your position is the one philosophers like WLC reject: God cannot operate outside of logic. That's the whole point I'm making. God is necessarily bound by logic so arguing he created it is incoherent. If I've misunderstood your position please clarify.
@@JenYangLim Hi Jen.
I tried to address your point in my original comment in point #2 and #3. First, the idea of logical contradiction is fundamental to any human conception of any reality one can imagine. It is not possible for a human to conceive of a reality in which logical contradiction is possible, hence, for humans, such a reality that lacks this logic is impossible and hence it is a necessary property of all possible worlds. Invoking God to explain its existence is therefore fallacious because it exists necessarily. Second, if you think about what this implies, it implies that all possible worlds, including worlds that have God and worlds that do not have God, have logic built into them, and hence it's not even possible in any world for God to be the reason that logic exists, because the existence of God presupposes the applicability of logic. (If logic didn't apply to God's existence because he was "in control" of it, then God could both exist and not exist simultaneously. Not possible.)
I don't mean to contradict you, and I don't know why people say things like this about Albert Einstein, but factually, Einstein was a self-described agnostic who did not think a personal God made sense. He denied being an atheist but factually he did not believe in a God and his use of the word was poetic license. This is all well documented.
Google:
albert-einstein-quotes-on-a-personal-god-249856
(I personally am agnostic as well but think it doesn't make sense to assign human characteristics to the cause of the universe because I don't think there's any evidence to think a disembodied mind is possible.)
@@superdog797 sorry I fail to fully comprehend your argument. Are you trying to say, logic is based on what our mind can comprehend? And we need to believe in things that are logically sensible to us? Is that what you are trying to get at?
I don't disagree with what you said on Einstein, what I am trying to get at is that through the understanding of physics and maths, great minds like Einstein find it impossible to comprehend that there's no creator of the universe. Sadly, he didn't believe in a personal and relatable God, which is really a tragedy really.
I really enjoy this discussion with you, as you dont give the impression of someone who's just trying to prove his point and disagree, I hope we can continue this discussion amicably and hopefully you will come to a different conclusion from Einstein that there's is a personal God out there who truly loves us. Thus he created the universe.
Please can you translate in french ?
We're working on it!
@@drcraigvideos thank you !god bless you !
If the universe is random, as naturalists believe, then would not math and physics also be random? So would any other "laws of nature", so called?
Math can be applied to all logical structures. Not God
"Number rules the Universe."
- Pythagoras
@@MrFossil367ab45gfyth Correct and numbers don't lie
The premise of the argument is completely flawed. This is the epitome of the puddle argument. Maths perfectly describes nature because we developed math to describe nature. When we find something in nature that doesn't work with the current understanding we change the maths.
You don't get it don't you? Many equations that are made just because are beautiful - end up being used in the real world. The exsamles in the essay are eyeballing real mathematicians, but hey - you knoe better. Ok. Or how we account for the discovery of the Mandelbroad set for instance? Such ideas aren't developed to acount for the nature, just math play - end up reveals that with
Fractals you can Resembles accurately structures that appear from micro to cosmological scales.
@@LyubomirIko To your statement that "many equations made just because are beautiful" I suggest you read Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray by Sabine Hossenfelder (a strong critique to your statement). And to your notion of beauty I suggest you read Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman who articulates the two broad systems of thinking and reaching conclusions. Yes I won't deny the beauty in the fractal scale invariance of a Mandelbrot set or of a sunset for that matter. But what about things in this universe that do not evoke those same emotions?
@@LyubomirIko Beauty is in the eye of beholder dude. Also we evolved to find patterns, so finding something like that is just like us finding solace in the pattern of music.
We developed ways of articulating the math that works in nature, we did not create math or the way it works in the physical world. Romans use Roman numerals to articulate numbers, they didn't create numbers
@@dsoma1071 You are missing the point here. Why Math is. Math is not a product of human mind, but a discovery transcribed mentally from the Universe. Fundamentaly this intrinsic logic of relationships and ratios is behind the Universe, it also can be said that the math is the result of how the Universe is.
In both cases this relationship in itself shows that the properties of the universe are fully ratio-nal.
As Nikola Tesla said: "What one man calls God, another calls the laws of physics." What atheism in nutshell is saying that the laws aren't possible constructed rationally. But intrinsically they are.
This is silly. First of all, you're argument is basically:
1 - The world has patterns.
2 - Mathematics describes patterns.
3 - Hence, Mathematics can describe the patterns in our world.
4 - Also, *G O D*
Mathematics is a tool that we use to model systems based on assumptions. There is no intrinsic link between a hypothetical mathematical system and a real one. Look at something as basic as addition: it assumes that 0.5+0.5 = 1, and yet if I add half of a cow to another, identical, half of a cow, I don't get a full cow. I might have better luck approaching the problem with set theory, where {left half of cow} U {right half of cow} = full cow, but this is the problem. We don't sit around saying how terrible mathematics is because (half a cow)+(half a cow) doesn't equal (full cow) when we're trying to get every part of a cow because we know that this system was not made to handle such applications. It doesn't make the same assumptions that our real-world system does.
If our world were radically different, but still followed some number of patterns, it could still be described by mathematics. Is it possible for a universe with patterns to exist without a god? If so, how do we tell that universe apart from the one with a god? This argument is definitely very far from a proof.
As a second point, Douglas Adams' puddle analogy certainly comes to mind here, especially with people in the comments randomly saying "Life was not a chemical accident." as if that means anything here. In short, here is what we'd be doing in a universe that didn't have patterns (notice the lack of wondering whether a god exists):
*̶̢͕̪̽̓̈́̓͗́ͅV̶̢̧̹̳͍͇͎͈̬͈̾͑̈́̌͊͜͝&̴̘̲̝̜̱͓̯͖͑͆̎%̵̲̿̀̽͋̊̐̏^̸̛̬̺̔̉̀̃͛͂̀̀͊͆͐̔͝R̷̨̮̻̙̟͚͉̼̲̣̬̞̺̥͂̽́̉͛̂͗̓̃͜͝͝8̴̨̧̪̙͖̻̥̪̮̥̔̏̂̏̉̋͑̈́̈́̏6̵̩̝͍̪̦͍̮̰̯̿͛̇͋͌̇̆̇̾͐̕5̶̨̥̠̜̘̟͕̦̺͕̌̾̐͋̇̌͊̈́̚ͅͅ7̷͇͙̖͍͂͆̿͒̈́̌̈̈́͝͠Ṟ̸̡͎͙̣͎͇͓̣̫̠͓͖̽̓̈̄̿̉̋͌͆̃̄́̅͝V̴̛̫̭̱̱̖̜̗̱̓͆̃̾̓̒̑͒̏̅́̇̕͠*̵̡̘̞̩͖͇͚̮̞͚̦͚͆͂̽̋̀́̃͆̍̉̈́̎̕͝͝^̸̦̰̝̮̺̞̗͑̋͛̏́̚͝ͅ%̶͙̟̘̞̪̝̞͕͓͔̪̘͚̪̓̒́̑̆͜͝͝7̵̡̧̛̟͙͔̳̣͇̠̪́̾̐̒́͒̍̔͒͘͝Ř̵̨̖͇̓͂̊͛̓̃̂̿̚͝͠8̷̮̈͌͌̈͗͌̇͑̔͌̑̕͝v̷̝̤̲͍͖̬̭̠͌͂̌͝ͅ6̵̲̻̥͖̞̯̲͚̳̬̈́͑̽͌̈́͝ͅ7̷̧̨̧͉̹̳̗̬̠̯̭̝̦̱͎̉̾̃̑̌̎̊͑̈́͊̃͝5̵͉̪͋͛̿͗̔̈̽̈́̔̃͂͘͠R̷̡͇̹̰͔͍͕͚͇͉͇͗̌̊̏̅͜͜͝͠͝8̶̼͐^̷̜̗̅̔̚%̷͔̉̓̈́̑̾͝&̷͉̘̤̾̿͊̇̎͐̅́͋̈́R̷̝̋̀̊̚͝B̴͚̞̠̄̄̒̏^̶̖̦̼͈̺̱̗̹́̏́̃%̶̧̦̝̗̦͓͎̺̺͙̩͈̘͇̀̽̐͂ͅ&̶̗̈́̒̉̌̾͘*̵̛̗̯̙̳͆̽͌̒͌͗̕
G̶̡͈̼̝͉̩͈͉̮͋͋͑́̎͋̂̓͆̇8̸͓̭̜̺̪̻̝͙̤̦́͂́̉̂͑̓̋̓̄̾̑͛͒͝7̶̞̣̻̘̫̥̹̹̩̪̉͆̆͒̽̓̋̀̂̽y̶̪͍̼̓̐ģ̴̨̮̬̹̺͉̈͐͒̎́͜͠*̴̯̭̫̹̣̙͊̔̈́̀̾̒̈́̀͒̅͜͜Y̴̖͓̦͈̥͎̰͇͇̳͔͔̰̱͐̎̔̏̇̔̐͂͠Ģ̵̨̨̝͔̭͒*̵̘͇̟͊̐̇̇̔̔̔̀̚͠͝Ģ̸̱̗̤̫͉͔̖̩̻̥͍̭̒̒̐̆̄́͆́͜*̴̛͚͖͙̙̭̲̤͔̥͔̼̱̫̐̅͐̎̓͒̿́̈́͐͋̕ͅ&̷͍͇̲̮̬̫͎̲̅g̴̡̦͖̞̰͓̱͚̥̔̅͜͜*̷̡̜̜͔͈̙̼̬̞̦͇̘͚̔̉̈̎̕̚^̸̘͓͉͖̺͍̈̀͛̎̌͐̄̉͘͘&̷̪̣̲̘͙̗̍́ͅͅT̵͓̮͍́̋6̵̡̧̪͚̳̞̹̼̬͕͓͈̼̯͖̿̃̄͗̚7̵͔̲̘̩̘̦̃̀̈̿̌Ŕ̶̜̿̑̆̋̅̚͜^̷̡̮̰̱͌͛̇͗̀̂͋͜*̸̡̝̩̦̖̥̹̩̱͈̬̤̃͋́̇r̸͇̯̮̜̻̣̞̻̃̈́̏͂̀̍͑͛̉͋͘͠^̴̡̧̨̰͎̗̝͎̻͖͉̗̌͗͌̾̇̅̾͜*̵̧̖̞͔͔̘̱̱͕̱͓̺͗̓̓̏̅͌͝l̴̢̧̛͓͖̪̦̗͚͖̺̲̜̱̜̑͛̐̓̐̃̓͑̌͜͠͝Ę̷̧̡̙͈͙̖͎͍͎̭̞̺̈̋̎̿͋̿̊̿͗͘͘̚͜͝͝6̸̧̢̛͓̙̺̀̉̒̀͋̇̓͂̌̚̚͝͠K̴̞̭͍͕͇̖̔͛̆̾͐͝Ę̶̱͔͉̤̹̗̖̈́́̓̆̓̽̉̋͘F̴̨̹̠͇̫̰̤̼͚̺̞͖̙̈́̑̀̽͝Ũ̴̡̧̼̥̭̼̝̮͎̭̗͍̱͖̑̈́͑͒͒̉͋͗̎́̊̈̚͜
@@jonathanzogbi3028
The second law of thermodynamics *is* a pattern, and the second law of thermodynamics doesn't even imply that patterns are a miracle. Entropy can increase in one place so long as the entropy in the universe decreases overall. Claiming that that's 'miraculous' is assuming you have any idea whatsoever what the chances of such a thing happening are, which, given that no one does, I doubt you do.
@@jonathanzogbi3028, oh dear, you really think "the database of miracles in the Catholic Church" is convincing? Only if you believe it in the first place.
@@jonathanzogbi3028, because I already know what kinds of "miracles" religious people swallow. Do you know that, even granting all the "miracles" at Lourdes, it fails as a treatment under standard medical protocols due to its abysmally low "cure" rate?
@@jonathanzogbi3028, sorry, a "miracle" from the 8th century isn't at all convincing.
@@jonathanzogbi3028, a scientific database on a "miracle" from over 12 centuries ago? That's not science, that's laughable.
I don’t understand if I 60 mph and it’s 60 miles away and if I go 60 miles an hour I will be there in an hour. How does that prove God because I use math to figure out distance and speed. Can someone explain
The point is that math is applicable to the structure of the physical world, which at a certain level seems incomprehensibly unlikely given naturalism, which has no resources for explaining such correspondence. Given naturalism, it's just as likely that our universe would be an a-mathematical chaos. But if the universe was intentionally created on a mathematical blueprint by a transcendent, perfectly rational mind (God), then the applicability of math to the physical world has a straightforward explanation. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos I honestly perfectly understand it now you explained it perfectly you’re right if I take a bomb and set it off I’m not gonna get numbers. It’s just a blob of a mess but the universe could be measured with precision. I will use this as one of my arguments that God exist. Thank you so much for the video. Thank you for responding.
@@drcraigvideos Sounds like god of the gaps to me. How many universes exist with different mathematics, but produces chaos? You don't know.
@@drcraigvideosthis can only work if mathematics was seen anywhere other than human beings. It's not. It's just a form of language we invented. Like words represent ideas, feelings, etc. Numbers and symbols represent logic, real world phenomena, etc.
@@tonyisnotdead Propositions which are truth apt have to do with reality. As such, they either reflect reality or they do not. By saying that math is language-dependent, you are implying that 2+2 did not equal 4 prior to the development of language. Hopefully you see why such a position is highly implausible. Moreover, if God exists, then why think there was ever a time at which language did not exist? If it's possible that 2+2 equaled 4 prior to the arrival of intelligent life in the universe (which seems intuitive), then perhaps there's an argument to be run that such truths imply the existence of God even if math is language-dependent. - RF Admin
..How come you didn't quote Srinivasa Ramanujan??!?!!!??
I'm a statistician. My job is to make mathematics "work" and explain the world (physical, social, biological, etc.). Given my experience and training, I can definitively say that, no, mathematics is not "surprisingly," "miraculously," or whatever, applicable to the physical world. I can see how someone in the 60's, such as Wigner, think so, with the limited knowledge and tools available at that time. But, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a mathematician/physicist/statistician that'll agree with the premise in the modern day. In fact, I spend all my days, and make a living, coming up with more complicated, sometimes ad hoc, solutions to real world problems to get a marginally better *approximation* using math, but in no way can I say that these models are "applicable" as this video suggests (they work, sometimes). I wish it was true, but it just isn't, to the point where we "know" the limitation of our axiomatic mathematical system, and that there are fundamental aspects that math can never explain.
I can appreciate the work that you do since it is a valuable occupation. Yes, approximations are a part of everyone's daily experience. Nonetheless, precise mathematical models do explain much of nature and those need an accounting of their existence. Just because approximations exist, does not make the simple and elegant mathematical expressions that are at the same time profound go away. When applied to "normal" life, yes boundaries get a little blurred. Can we, for instance, take a boat and precisely - down to the nanometer - show where is the dividing line between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico? But the gravitational relationship between two bodies with mass can be described precisely. But, then again, how that maps out in space when the bodies are not perfectly spherical, will not be precise. So both precision and approximation apply. It is not one or the other.
When I use Excel, if in general format, I can get a result that shows 3.1415927x10^-13. If I set that to comma format, I will get 0.00. If I want to go to Mars, I might need the extra precision. If I just need to pass an audit, comma format is more than sufficient.
To say Wigner was in a time of "limited knowledge" as far as its application to this discussion is concerned is a bit much. The standard model of physics was mostly known - only a few additions since then such as quarks being confirmed, tau neutrino and Higgs boson. General relativity was long prior confirmed along with the whole quantum world. There still is no GUT/ToE to say we've reached a whole new peak of cosmic understanding. I'm very comfortable standing with Wigner's statement.
@@msvvero My criticism towards Wigner, and the premise/conclusion this video makes, is the notion that physics (and a limited view at that) is everything. I can name several fields (in natural and social sciences, even in physics), where mathematics is not "surprisingly" applicable. To say that because math is surprisingly applicable for some physical phenomena, therefore math is surprisingly applicable to the physical world, is sheer arrogance (and tbh I do see this from physicists from time to time). You're counting the hits and ignoring the misses. For every instance math is surprisingly applicable, I can name a dozen cases where it is not, which seems to defeat the premise.
If math has this magical property of explaining the world, why do we have the uncertainty principle? If our physical world is fundamentally probabilistic, the notion that math explains anything is simply about probability approximations, making the argument moot. Why do we have 3000+ axioms in math? If math is so applicable and universal, why do we have the incompleteness theorem, and no unifying axioms? The points raised in this video flies in the face of what we know about math and the physical world, and just doesn't match up with what we (scientists) do, to the point where it's honestly offensive.
My humble guess is because you are not able to know all the needed variables and premises in order to be precise. Since God can know and know that in fact He is able to tell us anything that is going to happen in the universe, precisely.
@@abraao2213 That's a great point! We often think about processes with infinite variables, and check how well our models do, theoretically, against them, knowing that we can never be exactly precise (because we can't deal with an actual infinite number of variables, and more fundamentally the uncertainty principle). But this refutes the argument presented here, because this admits that math is simply an approximation (a finite variable model to an infinite variable process). Sometimes the models work well (because the few variables we have approximate the infinite variables well enough), sometimes it doesn't, making the applicability of math random (coincidental).
This actually raises an interesting point regarding (in my opinion the best argument for god) the argument from contingency, which states that if everything is contingent on each another, there must be something that is necessary at the base (i.e. god). However, if there is a model of everything in the universe (which is fundamentally unknown to us), and therefore god can know everything precisely because he knows/created the model (past, present, and future), then things are no longer contingent, but necessary, because it could not have happened any other way (e.g. for e=mc^2, if we have m and c, e has to be e). This makes math and everything necessary (or brute fact), so the argument "math, therefore god" becomes "necessary thing, therefore necessary thing." This is what Oppy raised in his debate with WLC, which WLC had no real answer to.
On the other hand, if these phenomena contain something that is fundamentally random (unknowable), even to god, that makes everything probabilistic (god can know the future to some precision, but not exactly), making even god probabilistic (there is something about god that god himself doesn't know, in order for him to create something that he doesn't know), which makes god, well, not god, and just the first random thing in a chain of random things.
My view is the latter, because it aligns with what I know from my own studies, but I think the former is also, equally likely, given that we don't have any evidence for either (we don't know if there is even an infinite variable model that is exactly precise, and we can never know). That being said, I think theists and atheists should think hard about the implications of these two views (for example, the former does not allow for free will), and other possible views.
Because General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and other fields do not have this complicated ad hoc structure. Einstein's field equations can be written on the back of a postcard, and yet are confirmed to 14 places of a decimal by observation. Ad hoc models have very little predictive power and have to be made more and more complicated to fit additional observation. This is the exact opposite of what physicists encounter.
This doesn't justify the existence of god. As always, the argument is "We don't know why *insert any mystery* is how it is, therefore the mythical being ancient people invented exists". Doesn't make a lot of sensw
😂ikr. It is such a simplistic way of viewing things. Such a waste for such video editing skills.
Mathematics is a language invented by human culture. That it works is no more miraculous than words working. It says more about the limitations of human beings than it does the universe.
The universe can be usefully described by words, because words are what humans use to describe the world. The universe can be usefully described by mathematics, because mathematics is the most precise method for describing things that human culture has developed so far.
If it weren't a useful description, it would not be used as such. Mathematics is no more miraculous than language, mathematics is language.
This is really a stupid argument.
"The universe can be usefully described by mathematics, because mathematics is the most precise method for describing things that human culture has developed so far." This is just a circular reasoning. The question really is why is there ANYTHING which describes reality adequately, since whatever that thing is we can just call it "mathematics".
Your argument presupposes that there is *something* which can describe reality adequately, thus you are dodging the question entirely...
@@jonassattler4489 If things were not possible to describe, we could not discuss anything. Obviously, we can discuss things. Of necessity, we live in a discussable universe. This is not a miracle. It is a fact.
Mathematics does not describe the universe, but is a method of discussing it, the most precise method so far. But the Universe itself is not mathematical. There are no infinite sets, time and space are not infinitely divisible, even basic operations like counting and logic fail.
Suppose I start counting oranges. After a while, I find a conjoined orange. How do I count it? Is it one or two oranges? If I count enough oranges, I will come across more conjoined oranges, some almost two oranges, some just a little over one. If a basic mathematical operation such as counting fails so easily, how is the universe reflective of mathematics?
Modus Ponens does not describe the real world, but is a statement about how language works. It is useful for reasoning about the world, because it helps ferret out the consequences of our attempts at describing the world. But like counting above, it will fail.
Since neither time nor space are infinitely divisible, calculus fails to describe the real world. For example, since an electron is known to be no bigger than 10^-18m, the mass equivalent of the self-energy of an electron, that is the mass of the potential energy of the negative charge constrained to that diameter is much greater than the observed mass of an electron.
Counting fails. Logic fails. Calculus fails. But they are the most precise method we have of describing things, as incomplete and inaccurate as those descriptions may be. The conclusions they draw are conclusions about descriptions. Where the description fails, we reject the description.
Claiming then that God made the universe describable by mathematics is just plain stupid. If the universe were completely incomprehensible, we would be unable to even form this discussion.
Really, the argument is no better than, "I think, therefore God."
@@antondovydaitis2261 All of this ignores the question poses.
Nobody argues that physical laws are actually reality, after all pretty much any theory of physics has been disproven (Newton's laws) or is known to be incomplete (QM, Relativity).
But, none of this answers the question why the Universe can even be modeled so simply. Why can you describe our entire theory of light in 4 equations? Why doesn't it take a million equations?
@@jonassattler4489 "Why only 4 and not a million" It seems to me that if we had a million equations you'd still ask "why not a trillion?". The number of equations are just an unimportant thing.
I understand not being satisfied with the happy coincidence response, but why is it wrong? The video states that it does not actually explain why the universe is built off of mathematical principles. But, to say that it is a coincidence is precisely to say that there IS no reason for why it is, rather it just happens to be the case. How would we go about proving, using this argument alone, that this isn’t just a happy coincidence. The final form of the argument even states in one of its premises that this is not a coincidence. There must be some evidence for this, then? You must have evidence that proves it is not a coincidence? And, lastly, couldn’t an atheist respond in a similar way to the claim that God created the world this way? In other words, to say that God created the world on mathematical principles (a claim that cannot possibly be proven, for we would have to know the mind of God), does not answer WHY this is the case. Its just stating that this is how God created the world. This is not much different from saying that this is just how the world is. So, no real explanation is offered.
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM!
Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings!
Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
RSV
Only-monos
God-theos
Monos theos
Monotheism
The Father
Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)!
Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God!
Jesus has a God!
Jesus died!
God can’t die!
@ktownbball ktownbball Who is Jesus’s God?
Who is Paul referring to as “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ”?
Who is Peter referring to as “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”?
Who is Jesus referring to when he says “my God”?
Rom 15
6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Cor 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,
2 Cor 11
31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie.
Eph 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1
17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him,
Col 1
3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,
1 Pet 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
Rev 1
6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Rev 3
12 He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.
@ktownbball ktownbball
I used to be a trinitarian I’m aware of what is taught and I’m saying it’s not in the Bible
You won’t find:
“Three persons in one being”
Or anything remotely close
Who is Jesus’s God?
Who is Paul referring to as “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ”?
Who is Peter referring to as “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”?
Who is Jesus referring to when he says “my God”?
Rom 15
6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Cor 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,
2 Cor 11
31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie.
Eph 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1
17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him,
Col 1
3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,
1 Pet 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
Rev 1
6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Rev 3
12 He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.
@ktownbball ktownbball
Jesus has a God
The Father doesn’t
Is Jesus God who has a God??
@ktownbball ktownbball
There is nothing in scripture about two persons being one being. Let alone three persons being one being.
Who is Jesus repeatedly referring to as “my God”?
Rev 3
12 He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.
I think you need to look into your discussion with Grahem Oppy some more on this subject. I think he really demonstrated the intuition which dismisses the claim that "The universe is based on mathematics".
However your argument is structured very very well.I suspect Dr. Oppy's argument suggests that mathematics is the mere observation of the consistent nature of reality. The "Rules" are just principles of consistency and it's not really about anything else. Which basically dissolves this argument among others into the contingency argument, which I have always asked in the form "why anything?"
It wouldn't really dissolve the argument because it would just push it further towards the issue of natural laws and regularities. If we are just describing the consistent nature of reality, there is still the deeper question of why reality is orderly, how come things follow and display regularities (that we can then describe mathematically) instead of being utterly chaotic and unpredictable. Reality is, at its base-level, orderly, regular, harmonious, predictable. All of that sits much better with the theistic idea that the foundation of reality is the Logos, Mind, than with the naturalistic picture.
You've convinced me. Odin is clearly true.
Except , Odin didn't created the physical world but was a product of it?
The existence of which god? Even if this was all unarguably true, it wouldn’t prove the existence of Yahweh in particular. It could be Allah, it could be all the gods of the Greek mythology, we could be living in a simulation and so it could just be a person.
There's only one God. The God of jews, christians and muslims. I used to think that God is an abstract concept as well. But when you realize that most celebrities, singers and politicians are actually satanists you start to realize that the biblical narrative about Satan ruling this world is true. Just look at Celine Dion making propaganda of a gender neutral baby clothing line with 666 symbols, "New Order" written in the clothes, and goat's heads. Or look at the Gotthard Tunnel opening ceremony in Switzerland, with presidents of many countries watching people dressed as extraterrestrials, fallen angels and goat creatures dancing and simulating sex (it's in TH-cam). Or look at singers like Billie Eilish, dressed as an angel with broken wings while singing "all good girls go to hell". There's something really off about media and the people who control it. This world is ruled by rich people who serve dark powers, and then there's God and his forces fighting against it.
@@eduardonevesreis4554 Wrong, Santa Almighty is the one and only god..
Actually most Satanist do not believe in a literal Satan and even if they did this would not prove any religion correct.
Most Satanist use Satan as a metaphor for human rebellion .
The term God is a blanket statement for deity which does make it an abstract concept.
@@shanestrickland8481 I know a lot of satanism because I dabbled in satanism myself. What you're talking about is the satanism of Lavey, wich is not true satanism. Lavey was joking with the the concept of Satanism. His church was a parody only meant to mock christianity. He was more of an atheist than a true satanist. Real satanism is not revealed to the public, because real satanists are very rich people who deal with real entities. They believe Lucifer is God and they think God is actually evil. Lavey and his followers are not satanists. This is the "false satanism", wich they want people to believe in. But the ones who inspired Lavey, like Aleister Crowley, they inspired real satanism as well.
Good question, how about you start exploring it yourself? I did the same as an atheist, the logic I used was looking at the root or beginning of each religion. To which I find, most religion in the world seemed like it was made or created for the purpose of ruling over others. Ie, their king or leader being their god. The exception being Christianity and Buddhism, but in Buddhism, Buddha didn't have the answer, he had to seek out the answer, thus the similarity to Hinduism. But Jesus says that He is the way, the truth and the live. Another thing I find interesting, as a person who has been interested in philosophy at a young age, I find that most things shared in philosophy are things that can be logically thought out, or things I have thought of before. But, the bible is different. And finally, through studying psychology and interest since a young age to find truth from falsehood. I find the writing style and the characters of the bible to be very interesting and far-fetched if it were false. These are the few basis for my leap of faith.
I do believe logically, science points more towards that there's is a creator than there being no creator. I dont believe its conclusive evidence, just require much less faith that things are so coincidentally here when there's no God. Thus, I believe I have to really explore myself and seek truth. Because it is our lives, and it is only logical that we find out what lies after death.
3:12 claiming that imaginary numbers cannot be realized in the physical world is incredibly ignorant.
Why?
Yes, why?
Provide us incredibly ignorant folk with your example that disputes the claim.
Not just "talk"...
@@bradsmith9189 The imaginary number is imaginary, only because it doesn't exit on the real line. Last I checked, the physical world is not a real line.
www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/imaginary.html
But, the broader point is that math is all abstract. It's all made up. Just that some of it is useful/applicable. The notion that you can separate math into things that are "real" and "imaginary" is honestly silly and would only come from someone who has never studied math past high school.
The trivial example I'm thinking of is that complex numbers is a perfectly fine way to describe coordinates in 2D space. Surely we can agree that coordinate systems are more than just an abstract concept.
A less trivial example would be modeling of dynamic systems.
agreed.
Isn't it like saying why is reason so unreasonably effective at describing the universe?
How is "god did it " a satisfactory answer ?
An intelligent being designed the elegant universe... doesn't that answer why it's so elegant?
@@Nwunchuck27You can't know that. You can't prove that. The difference between people who practice science and religious folk is one group says "I don't know" when they don't know something while the other group says "god did it " until group 1 figures out how it actually works.
Nice animations!