From: sheila-mcginty@geotec.net
Date: Wed Sep 03 2003 - 11:03:21 EDT
The Bible says that the simple things confound the wise - this would include
mathematics. I do not believe that math is a creation of man - man cannot
create. I believe that we discovered math and, like Debbie, find myself
continually intrigued and amazed with the wonder of mathematics and our
universe. Math is one of those wonderful things that furthered my belief in
God. The simplicity and amazing complexity of pi are incredible. God is an
awesome God.
Quoting "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>:
> I believe mathematics is a creation of man and the fact that it is the
> language that describes the physical aspect of nature successfully
> corroborates that both man and nature are created by God.
>
> Moorad
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Debbie Mann
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:58 AM
> To: Asa
> Subject: RE: Van Till's Ultimate Gap
>
> I tutored my step-son last night in probability. I've tutored him
> before
> in
> Calculus. Every so often in the process, we get to a point where he
> sees
> the
> wonder in the math as I do. "And that just happens?" To which I reply,
> "Isn't it cool how it all works together?"
>
> I studied projective geometry for my masters. It is great fun. It is
> possible to do many neat 'party tricks' with it. It is the third
> possibility, with Euclidean being the first and elliptical the second.
> Stepping beyond Euclidean was fundamental for Einstein.
>
> The math in this universe alone is a miracle. It is phenomenal, amazing
> and
> I absolutely believe it was created by a great mind. It didn't just
> happen.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of Iain Strachan
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 1:49 AM
> To: Josh Bembenek; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Van Till's Ultimate Gap
>
>
> I think Stephen Hawking alludes to the "ultimate gap" very clearly in
> the
> last page of "Brief History of Time", by asking questions such as "Why
> does
> the universe go to the bother of existing at all?" "What is it that
> breathes fire into the equations?" "Why is there something rather than
> nothing?". His book concludes famously with the statement that if we
> knew
> the answer to these questions, then we would truly know the mind of
> God.
> Though Hawking is an atheist, I think he is perhaps making the point
> that
> there are some things for which we may not expect to find a
> naturalistic
> explanation. It just IS, and from there we enter the realm of
> philosophy/theology/metaphysics, or whatever. The maths tells us HOW,
> but
> it doesn't tell us WHY.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Iain .G.D. Strachan
>
> There are 10 types of people in the world ...
> those who understand binary and those who don't.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Josh Bembenek" <jbembe@hotmail.com>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 6:42 AM
> Subject: Van Till's Ultimate Gap
>
>
> > Just a quick thought that I'd like some feedback on. Many on this
> list
> have
> > expressed dismay over IDers usage of God's "hand-like" action as a
> magic
> > wand to use whenever scientists don't understand a particular
> phenomena.
> I
> > agree that it is fruitful to point out that God never ceases to act
> in
> > sustaining Creation and that such rhetorical strategy implies
> unintelligent
> > creation when natural mechanisms are found to account for such
> phenomena.
> > However, I wonder if this same problem exists for the fully-gifted
> creation
> > viewpoint? What makes us think that the origin of space time and the
> > derivation of matter, energy and all of the universe is simply a gap
> in
> our
> > understanding that some future naturalistic discovery won't elegantly
> > explain, again making the "God Hypothesis" obsolete? Perhaps I
> should
> > remember some discussion of this in some article, but its not coming
> to
> me.
> > I don't care to defend my idea by trying to give any explanation for
> a
> > naturalistic origin of space-time. Besides for those here, isn't it
> > sufficient enough to hypothesize that a naturalistic explanation is
> out
> > there awaiting our discovery instead of "jumping the gun" and
> prematurely
> > attributing creation to the act of God before all explanations are
> fully
> > explored? The Big Bang Hypothesis is younger than evolution isn't
> it?
> I'm
> > not looking for a drawn out debate, just some thoughtful
> considerations.
> >
> > Josh
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get MSN 8 and enjoy automatic e-mail virus protection.
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Sheila McGinty Wilson
sheila-mcginty@geotec.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through OnRAMP/GeoTEC Webmail: webmail.geotec.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 03 2003 - 11:05:51 EDT