James,
Would you say that God created the English language and that writers and
such discovered it or would you say that we (as a society) developed, or
created, it (if both, or neither, please explain)? The English language is
very much like mathematics. The words and phrases are elements of a set,
grammar is like an algebraic structure and what one might call style or
rhetoric is like a topology (sort of, the last one is a bit of a stretch
but I think you can see what I am meaning).
Joel
-----Original Message-----
From: James W Stark [SMTP:stark2301@voyager.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 3:08 PM
To: asa
Subject: Re: New thread: Mathematical truth
<< File: ATT00003.att >> on 9/4/01 3:03 AM, psiigii at psiigii@home.com
wrote:
> James,
>
> 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"?
>
> Stark?s reply
> Apparently, I gave you the impression that I saw mathematics as evidence
of
> God?s design. Sorry, that was not intended.
>
>
> 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?
>
> Stark?s response
> I do not place God in any box or presume restrictions of my choosing.
> Giving credit to God for the creation of mathematics does not place God
in a
> box. I do not see God as using mathematics to create the Universe. As I
see
> it, God gave us a gift of mathematics to use, but God did not promise to
> always reveal truth with its use. (I am not yelling with the larger type
> ?just trying to emphasize a point and hope for a response.)
>
> 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.
>
>
> Stark?s reply
> I am not suggesting mathematics as evidence of God?s design or it being
> necessary for creation. I do not believe that any evidence of direct
creation
> of either mathematics or the Universe will be found. I see this as a
> consequence of God?s gift of freedom.
>
> 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.
>
> Stark?s reply
> As I see it, we use God given abilities to use logic plus the
universal
> nature of mathematics to structure physics. We can discover laws of
mathematic
> or physics, but that is not creating them.
>
> Here is a clip from Joel Bandstra?s comments with my response.
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.
My response
A mathematician does "create" mathematical structures by selecting
the defined elements and operations for a
system. But, is that creation totally by the human mind from a
programmed logic? Are there not aspects of
mathematics that God created? Surely, we ?discover? some of those
laws as we explore the deductive patterns.
>
> 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 und
erstand
> creation.
>
> I agree! Jim Stark
>
> Howard
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: James W Stark <mailto:stark2301@voyager.net>
>> To: asa <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>> 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 - 22:47:31 EDT