Howard makes an analogy between mathematics and language. I think this is
a very good one, especially in considering the role of mathematics in
science. Think of some of the ways in which we use mathematics: In science
we use mathematics to describe and categorize observations made in nature
and in the lab; In engineering we use mathematics to design, and
communicate the design of, an object for a specified purpose; One could
even think of the pure mathematician as a sort of poet or composer, using
existing mathematics to express new ideas and to invent new mathematics,
subject only to his knowledge, creativity, and, of course, his funding
source. The circle, for example, is an idea. To be sure, it is one
suggested by nature and it is certainly a creation of our triune God but it
is so in much the same way that Latin is suggested by nature and a creation
of our triune God.
-----Original Message-----
From: psiigii [SMTP:psiigii@home.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:04 AM
To: James W Stark; ASA
Subject: Re: New thread: Mathematical truth
<< File: ATT00000.att >> 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 - 15:29:37 EDT