Christianity

[iambiguous]

Does God Exist?
William Lane Craig says there are good reasons for thinking that He does.

(III) God is the best explanation of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world.

This in and of itself is truly mysterious. Did God create the universe in accordance with inherent immutable laws of matter [mathematically or otherwise] or did He first create the laws of matter themselves? Just look at how extraordinarily complex the laws of matter can be. Mind-boggling mathematics that only a tiny few can really grasp. Couldn't an omniscient and omnipotent God have created a reality considerably less complex? Or did He have no real choice in the matter because of necessity these laws are by their very nature complex?

Philosophers and scientists have puzzled over what physicist Eugene Wigner called “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics.” How is it that a mathematical theorist like Peter Higgs can sit down at his desk and, by pouring over mathematical equations, predict the existence of a fundamental particle which, thirty years later, after investing millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours, experimentalists are finally able to detect?

Okay, now connect the dots between this and a God, the God, your God.

Scientists will sometimes speak of the "God particle":

"The Higgs boson is often called 'the God particle' because it's said to be what caused the 'Big Bang that created our universe..." CBS news

So, perhaps one day scientists will prove the existence of a God, the God...mathematically?

Or go here: https://youtu.be/WFmWhwyA0NU

Still, what are the chances that it will turn out be your God and not their God?

Mathematics is the language of nature. But how is this to be explained? If mathematical objects like numbers and mathematical theorems are abstract entities causally isolated from the physical universe, then the applicability of mathematics is, in the words of philosopher of mathematics Mary Leng, “a happy coincidence.” On the other hand, if mathematical objects are just useful fictions, how is it that nature is written in the language of these fictions? The naturalist has no explanation for the uncanny applicability of mathematics to the physical world.

Yes, all of this is truly fascinating. And there may well be intelligent lifeforms on other planets able to grasp it such that to them we may as well still be living in caves. Their naturalists may run rings around ours. But that's one thing. Demonstrating the existence of an actual God revolving around an actual denomination on this planet...that's another thing altogether.

Then back to this gigantic leap:

By contrast, the theist has a ready explanation: When God created the physical universe, He designed it in terms of the mathematical structure which He had in mind.

Indeed. And if this "ready explanation" need only be believed "in your head", all the better. And if this belief comforts and consoles you by allowing you to believe in commandments on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side of it, all the better still.

We can summarize this argument as follows:

1. If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be just a happy coincidence.

2. The applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Right.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929

[Gary Childress]

I do not think "moved ON" describes the progress. I would call it building on. Building on Natural Selection.

Perhaps not, but it's become more nuanced than it once was.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't know why I have to go first.

To interchange with me you must make a significant contribution.

Oh "interchange". you naughty boy!!

Intercambio en español, pervertido!

[iambiguous]

With so much at stake on both sides of the grave, what would you give to find someone able to demonstrate that a God, the God, their God does in fact exist beyond an existential leap of faith?

An old man woke up one morning to a flood caused by three days of steady rain, but by the time the flood arrived from upstream the rain had passed on by, leaving bright sunshine and the sky extra blue because it had washed clean.

That’s why it all seemed so unreal when the water began rise. So extra normal, but also not normal. Not even dangerous. It was not a raging flood. It was mostly peaceful.

When the water had elevated to thigh high on the ground floor some neighbors floated by in a canoe and offered a ride.
The old man said, “Go pick up someone else, God will save me.”

When it reached the second floor of his house, a motor boat floated by and the captain strongly urged him to hop in, but he said the same thing. “Help others, God will save me.”

He even said that on the roof when the helicopter hovered overhead, but they couldn't hear him. The man with the bullhorn announced that they were coming down, but he waved off the chopper.

After the water covered the roof the old man tried to swim, and then he drowned. He had the energy at first to try, but not for long. Mother Nature wore him down fast, so he gave up and drowned.

As he was drowning his life flashed before his eyes and he saw an angel. He asked, “Why didn’t God save me?"

The angel said, “Hey look, pal. We sent a canoe. We sent a boat. We sent a chopper. Three strikes, you’re out.”
(The angel had once been a wise guy).


Did it really happen? Probably. There's been lots of floods.

Next up:

Connecting the dots between that and this:

"...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages..."


Note to the angel:

You're up!

[phyllo]

I don't know why I have to go first.

To interchange with me you must make a significant contribution.

I had enough interest to watch the video. I had enough interest to ask you about it.

If that's not enough for you to start a discussion, then so be it.

[Harbal]

If that's not enough for you to start a discussion, then so be it.

Yes, Jacobi, you weasel, so be it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't know why I have to go first.

To interchange with me you must make a significant contribution.

I had enough interest to watch the video. I had enough interest to ask you about it.

If that's not enough for you to start a discussion, then so be it.

Don’t interrogate me. It’s a time-worn tactic and I simply don’t play that way. Offer comments on the perspective presented by Bowden. Henry posted it in transcribed form. What interests you in it? Or, more likely, what do you object to?

[Harbal]

Don’t interrogate me.

No, you interrogate him:

What interests you in it? Or, more likely, what do you object to?

[phyllo]

To interchange with me you must make a significant contribution.

I had enough interest to watch the video. I had enough interest to ask you about it.

If that's not enough for you to start a discussion, then so be it.

Don’t interrogate me. It’s a time-worn tactic and I simply don’t play that way. Offer comments on the perspective presented by Bowden. Henry posted it in transcribed form. What interests you in it? Or, more likely, what do you object to?

You wanted to "break the ice".

I watched the video and asked you nicely about it.

You think that's interrogation??

You don't want to talk to me. Fine.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The video had little to do with Christian ethics and philosophy. So why would that be relevant?

I’d say that the stance of Bowden is a refutation of a good portion of Christian values that have been ‘installed’ in us.

Liberalism and egalitarianism are Christian children. Liberalism is ‘cracking’ and so is the sense of Christian cultural unity.

Bowden’s stance and outlook definitely have a relationship to that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, you interrogate him:

He wants (I gather) to exchange views and ideas. I made the initial effort in the post he quoted from. As I said he needs to make more substantive comments. Then he will surely get what he is after.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You don't want to talk to me. Fine.

If I have a want it is that you bring out your own view about the views expressed in that video. Then it is possible, indeed likely, I will comment. I participate in this forum because I want to talk.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You might give it a go yourself. Why wait for 2023?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I’ve answered this multiple times, in multiple ways, across multiple threads (includin' this one).

Yes, I know, and those answers have some relevancy. Yet I don’t see that you’ve directly engaged with Bowden. The transcript is helpful. What paragraph draws you — or repels you — as the case may be?

[Harbal]

You might give it a go yourself. Why wait for 2023?

I don't have the time. This decadent life of mine is very demanding.