Re: How Einstein and Hammond proved God existsJames,
I apologize for not replying sooner. I wrote much of the following 2 days ago, intending to finish
my response before fully replying.
I fully hold accept that God created all there is. Heb. 11:3 states, "By faith we understand that
the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of
things which are visible." Young's Literal Translation reads, "by faith we understand the ages to
have been prepared by a saying of God, in regard to the things seen not having come out of things
appearing;".
Re energy-matter (E=mc^2), The inherent properties of energy and matter (creation), and how
energy and matter act and interact--the essence and operation of creation--are aspects of that
creation, separate and apart from God, functioning as He designed them to work.
Did God create the language we use to describe creation and how we understand it operates?
It depends upon how literally one takes Genesis 1. If I'm YEC, then God created the language
Adam & Eve spoke so He could speak to them. If, however, as most on this list would assent to,
Genesis 1 is not literal history (168 hours... period), then where did languages--including
mathematics--come from?
I believe that in God's creation of man, He imparted to man the capability to develop means of
interpersonal communication for all purposes, including the description of His creation. While
some may point to apparent vestiges of mathematical precision in the accounts preserved in the
Bible as supplemental evidences of God's "authorship" many question this line of "evidence."
Others point to the mathematical precision of creation (which I do not question). Must we
therefore-- for either or both reasons-- put God in the box "He thinks/speaks mathematically"?
Reflecting back to Heb. 11:3 in NKJV/KJV/YLT "framed" (Gk. katartisthai - "to make thoroughly
fit", if I have correctly, NOT being a Gk scholar), doesn't necessitate that God, as an engineer,
mathematician or physicist, "wrote all the equations down" and reviewing His "designs" before
He created the heavens and the earth (still formless and void) and said, "Let there be light".
There ARE principles governing the operation of creation, and these are inherent characteristics
of creation. When we speak of creation, we necessarily confine ourselves to space-time. God,
however exists apart from space-time though He freely interacts and operates within space-time.
He has enabled us to ascertain operational principles of space-time. Our understanding is limited,
however.
If I wanted to draw VERY NEAT circles. I need only use a tack, a piece of string and a pencil. If
by using many very simple tools I design a new machine that operates in a very precise manner,
must I have necessarily used mathematical formalisms in the process? It certainly might be easier
if I used mathematical constructs. But is it really necessary? I think not, and that Neil Gerschenfeld
(@MIT, Things That Think constortium) enables elementary school children to how to design some
very complex electronic/computer devices and then THEY BY THEMSELVES BUILD THE DEVICES
in a 6-8 week period each summer hints that mathematical/engineering formalism might actually
hinder us. Gerschenfeld has much to say on these ideas and what the future may hold in electronics
and computational sciences.
If complex devices can be made by people without mathematics, why must God have (1) created
mathematics and/or (2) used mathematics to create the universe? If I truly believe "As the heavens
are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts"
(Isa. 55:9), why should I put God into the box of (1) creating and/or using mathematics to create the
universe or of (2) not giving man sufficient capacity to develop a language in which he (man) could
describe God's creation?
While I do observe mathematical precision in creation, I see no support for mathematics being a
"necessity" for creation. Nor do I see evidence of God's direct "creation of mathematics". That we
can use this language--though still very sloppily and inconcisely is evidence that God created man with
an amazing capacity (though limited IAW Isa. 55:9, however) to theorize and advance his understanding
of creation.
By similar reasoning, I would assert that, physics isn't creation nor is it necessary for creation. Physics
is a tool man uses to study and describe creation, with mathematics being the powerful language used in
that description. Both mathematics and physics are human creations and endeavors, however--and are
among the amazing capabilities imparted to us by God.
BTW, though I haven't read the book recommended by Lucy, I fully agree with her post.
Finally, picking up from your last post, I agree there are rules God established for the operation of creation.
Re my discussion above, I do not find necessary at all for God to have used "physics" or "mathematics"
to develop those laws. Mathematics and physics are what we use to understand creation.
Howard
----- Original Message -----
From: James W Stark
To: asa
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: How Einstein and Hammond proved God exists
on 8/31/01 3:21 AM, psiigii at psiigii@home.com wrote:
>Thank you, James! God did not create mathematics, nor did He create physics.
OK! Why not?
In my worldview reality consists of a physical universe (matter), a mental world, (our awareness of the laws of mathematics as well as any subject matter.), and the spiritual realm (known to us through our consciousness.)
Humans only use mathematics and physics. Who or what created the laws used in them, if it was not God?
>God created matter.
Or should we say energy rather than matter? Einstein's discovery of E = mc2 can be interpreted to imply how much energy is required to give the appearance of a certain amount of mass, which suggests that matter is an illusion. Did God create matter an illusion? Eastern religions start creation with illusion, while Christianity starts with truth.
How do you feel about mathematics not always estimating truth?
James Stark
> "Physics" is just man's feeble attempt to grasp the true
essence of the matter God created. Mathematics is just the language man uses
in these attempts. As man's insights into the true nature of "material world" grows,
the mathematical "language" we employ to conceptualize/formalize our insights--
which, BTW, may still not be the true essence--has evolved to this end. In the
end, however, physics is still man's attempt to understand, and mathematics is
still just man's language to verbalize our understanding (again, not necessarily
being the truth). Both are man's creations, not God's.
Howard Meyer
(BTW, George, I read your response to James before writing this...)
----- Original Message -----
From: "James W Stark" <stark2301@voyager.net>
To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: How Einstein and Hammond proved God exists
> on 8/30/01 9:07 AM, George Hammond at ghammond@mediaone.net wrote:
>
> > < large snip>
>
> > If then, "Man is made in the image of God", Riemannian
> > geometry must be the description of God.. or more specifically,
> > Einstein's theory is. See:
> >
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Rie-Helm-Weyl.html
>
> Quoting from this site:
> _Now, beyond all this, what we see is that the "geometric properties
> of space itself" are the CAUSAL FORCE that determines the geometrical
> shape of the human body. Because of this, it turns out that the
> "geometrical shape of the brain" is also determined and is found to
> be "3-axis Cartesian" in SHAPE (notice I said SHAPE, not volume).
> The Brain actually has Axes of mechanical symmetry, just like
> the Body:_
>
> Why do you confine your concept of God to mathematics. Mathematics can only
> estimate what might be fixed laws. It cannot guarantee truth. Physicists
> are now suggesting that matter is an illusion.
>
> As a reference see: <http://www.calphysics.org/pop_articles.html>
>
> See the article Beyond E=mc2 for how we can reason this way. I quote:
>
> _It is actually a statement about how much energy is required to give the
> appearance of a certain amount of mass, rather than about the conversion of
> one fundamental thing, energy, into another fundamental thing, mass._
>
> [B. Haisch, A. Rueda & H.E. Puthoff, The Sciences, Vol. 34, No. 6, November
> / December, pp. 26-31 (1994).]
>
> Mathematics cannot explain the truth of a non-deterministic free will.
>
> God used God's free will to create mathematics. The Christian God embraces
> the truth of non-deterministic free will. Your association of God to a
> mathematical proof cannot establish truth.
>
> James Stark
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 04 2001 - 00:04:50 EDT