Real Science Friday: Mathematics: Is God Silent? by James Nickel

[Jefferson]

Mathematics: Is God Silent? by James Nickel

This is the show from Friday July 8th, 2011.

SUMMARY:



* Why Does Mathematics Work? Real Science Friday speaks with James Nickel, author of Mathematics: Is God Silent? Nickel talks with Bob Enyart about Albert Einstein and how the personal creator God is the answer to the question that Einstein wrestled to answer. Bob and James also talk about Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, and why science was stillborn in ancient Greece.

* Update: In James Nickel's talk Friday night he demonstrated how mathematicians turn away from the physical world and yet make astounding discoveries that help to explain the world of matter and energy. They use only their minds, and these discoveries come decades and even centuries before their real-world counterparts make the discovery by observational science. This was Einstein's unanswerable dilemma, answered by the fact that the universe was designed in the mind of God. And because we are made in God's image, as Kepler is paraphrased we can think God's thoughts after Him. Exploring astounding and unexpected symmetries, mathematicians often describe their work as an aesthetic pursuit of beauty. So ignoring their five senses, the mathematicians who turn away from the physical world to the non-material world of ideas, seeking pleasure from pure intellectual elegance, often end up being the ones who come closest to describing the physical nature of the cosmos. Atheists struggle with this phenomena because it suggests that the universe originated with the desire for beauty in the mind of a personal Creator.

* James Nickel Speaks Tonight in Denver: The Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship welcomes Nickel who has traveled from his home in Washington to present to us Why Mathematics Works. Nickel has:
- taught math for nearly 30 years
- teaches at the Potter’s School which partners with homeschool families
- has been a computer systems analyst
- was a mathematical analyst in the 1970s for the United States Navy at Pt. Mugu Naval Air Station in California
- is a Senior Fellow of Mathematics at the Center for Cultural Leadership, and
- is an Adjunct Professor of the History and Philosophy of Mathematics at Rivendell Sanctuary, a worldview college in Minneapolis, Minnesota (which has on faculty one of Bob's favorite authors, Nancy Pearcey).

Stephen Hawking Flashbacks: Go to the Moon to Avoid Global Warming: First, end-of-the-world doomsday prophet atheist astrophysicist Stephen Hawking wants mankind to respond to the problems of global warming by colonizing the Moon or Mars evidently forgetting that the Moon's daytime temperature is over 200 degrees (107 C) and that neither location has liquid water or oxygen. The Sun is Earth's source of global warming, and because Mars is 50 million miles further from our Sun, its temperature ranges from 1 degree F down to 178 below! So mankind should flee from a temporary one degree fluctuation in the Earth's temperature into about 200 degrees, above and below zero, and say good-bye to liquid water and oxygen. And if global warming is so threatening to mankind, why does Hawking overlook the more logical safe havens of Antarctica, Greenland and Siberia?

* Hawkings: The Aliens Will Be Mean: Now, Stephen Hawking is urging mankind: "Don't talk to the aliens!" Why not? They may be mean! (Like on Star Trek, no?)

* Hawking's Circular Reasoning Exposed on Origins: Hawking says, for example, that the matter of the universe came from energy borrowed from the gravitational energy of the universe, to which Enyart asks, "What universe?" If you're explaining the origin of the universe, you cannot appeal to the universe itself. And Hawking claims that the laws of physics produced the universe even though 1) Big Bang cosmology claims that those laws did not exist prior to the Big Bang and 2) laws can't do anything. For example, the law of the conservation of angular momentum doesn't make anything and doesn't start anything moving. Newton's laws of motion don't make billiard balls move on a table but rather, they explain movements that occur.

Today’s Resource: Get the Spike Psarris DVD What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy! Have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out especially Walt Brown’sIn the Beginning and Bob’s interviews with this great scientist in Walt Brown Week! You’ll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez’ Privileged Planet(clip), and Illustra Media’sUnlocking the Mystery of Life(clip)! You can consider our BELScience Pack; Bob Enyart’sAge of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate about Junk DNA with famous evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott; and the superb kids' radio programming,Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI’s tremendousCreation magazine!

 

[Flipper]

I still don't see an evidentiary chain or a clear logical connection between "the universe is intelligible" and "intelligibility requires the existence of a personal God."

 

[Stripe]

:shut:

 

[Frayed Knot]

I still don't see an evidentiary chain or a clear logical connection between "the universe is intelligible" and "intelligibility requires the existence of a personal God."

It must follow directly from "this is complex and complexity requires the existence of a personal God."

 

[Tyrathca]

I still don't see an evidentiary chain or a clear logical connection between "the universe is intelligible" and "intelligibility requires the existence of a personal God."

Quite clearly you're thinking to hard about it. Stop thinking and it will all make sense....

 

[TeeJay]

I still don't see an evidentiary chain or a clear logical connection between "the universe is intelligible" and "intelligibility requires the existence of a personal God."

Flipper,

Einstein agonized over this until he went to be with Spinoza's god in hell. It's called Einstein's Gap or Gulf. Einstein could not fathom how immaterial ideas, reason, logic can come from chemicals and molecules. Einstein could not fill that gap because there is no conceivable way that reasonless matter can produce the immaterial laws of logic and reason.

We do not reason with our brains. We reason with our minds. Our brains are physical, composed of chemicals and molecules. If our thinking is chemicals and molecules in motion, then we can't know that our reasoning is valid. We can't even know that our brains are composed of chemicals and molecules.

Reason and laws of logic do not come from the dust of the earth. The dust of the earth can't give you something that it does not have to give. God created physical man (Adam) "from the dust of the earth," but He breathe into Adam's nostrils the breath of life. Life, laws of logic, reason, and the abstract qualities of liberty, justice, love must come from a Being who possesses these qualities. These qualities come from God and can't possibly come from matter. If you can fill Einstein's Gap, then do so.

When an atheist reasons and uses laws of logic, he is not being consistent and honest to his worldview. An atheist who believes that nothing but matter exists, can't then use the immaterial laws of logic to argue that only matter exists and remain consistent. When an atheist uses laws of logic and reasons, he has to leave his worldview and step into the theistic worldview. In doing so, he affirms the theistic worldview true and the atheistic worldview false.

The universe can be described mathematically because it was designed and created by an intelligent Being Who used mathematics to create it. This is why it is intelligible. Kepler who came up with the matematical equations for the orbits of the planets said that science was "thinking God's thoughts after Him."

Why should mathematics work in an atheistic accidental, random chance universe?

Tom

 

[Squishes]

Flipper,

Einstein agonized over this until he went to be with Spinoza's god in hell. It's called Einstein's Gap or Gulf. Einstein could not fathom how immaterial ideas, reason, logic can come from chemicals and molecules. Einstein could not fill that gap because there is no conceivable way that reasonless matter can produce the immaterial laws of logic and reason.

Source?

We do not reason with our brains. We reason with our minds.

Our brains solve problems, and we know how it does that.

Our brains are physical, composed of chemicals and molecules. If our thinking is chemicals and molecules in motion, then we can't know that our reasoning is valid. We can't even know that our brains are composed of chemicals and molecules.

Why can't we know our reasoning is valid if thought is just chemicals and molecules in motion?

When an atheist reasons and uses laws of logic, he is not being consistent and honest to his worldview.

You conflate atheism with materialism.

An atheist who believes that nothing but matter exists, can't then use the immaterial laws of logic to argue that only matter exists and remain consistent.

Almost all atheists believe in abstract objects.

The universe can be described mathematically because it was designed and created by an intelligent Being Who used mathematics to create it. This is why it is intelligible. Kepler who came up with the matematical equations for the orbits of the planets said that science was "thinking God's thoughts after Him."

Math describes our world because there is no other possible way it could be. In no possible world does 1+1=3.

 

[TeeJay]

=Squishes;2722714]Source?

Google Einstein's Gulf.

Our brains solve problems, and we know how it does that.

We know that A equals C because we have already proved they are both equal to B. Chemicals and molecules will not tell us this is true. My belief that things which are equal to the same thing are equal to one another is not at all based on the fact that I have never caught them behaving otherwise. I reason that this must be so. The physical brain will tell you that your knee hurts when you kneel on a stone, but it will not tell you that 2 plus 2 is always 4 under any circumctance, anywhere in the universe. Reasoning is not physical.

Why can't we know our reasoning is valid if thought is just chemicals and molecules in motion?

My brain is not the same as your brain. If thinking is simply chemicals in motion, why should the chemicals in my brain act the same as in your brain?

You conflate atheism with materialism.

Yes I do. An atheist who does not believe in a Spiritual God can't then argue for immaterial. Reason and logic can't come from reasonless matter.

Almost all atheists believe in abstract objects.

I know they do. But they are being irrational within their worldview. The atheist uses laws of logic and reason but he has no rational foundation to believe these immaterial things can exist in his worldview. He must borrow from the Christian worldview. The atheist will become righteously indignant when he sees injustice. But absolute morality can't exist in an atheist worldview. For there to be absolute morality, a God who is above man must exist. There is no getting around or behind this.

Math describes our world because there is no other possible way it could be. In no possible world does 1+1=3.

We all know this. But the question is why? Kepler was able to write mathematical equations to describe the orbits of the planets because God used mathematics to put them in orbit. Math can't be used to describe things that are random and accidental. If I just nail boards together without plans, I would have a dickens of a time using math to describe what I just randomly and accidentally nail together.

And, math is not physical.

Tom

 

[Squishes]

We know that A equals C because we have already proved they are both equal to B. Chemicals and molecules will not tell us this is true.

Of course not. Chemicals cause things but don't justify things. Google category error.

My belief that things which are equal to the same thing are equal to one another is not at all based on the fact that I have never caught them behaving otherwise. I reason that this must be so. The physical brain will tell you that your knee hurts when you kneel on a stone, but it will not tell you that 2 plus 2 is always 4 under any circumctance, anywhere in the universe.

Induction is hard-wired into our brain. We can't help but generalize beliefs.

Reasoning is not physical.

It isn't physical in the same sense "computation" isn't physical, since it can be embodied by many different physical substrates. But all computers are physical, just as all reason is physical.

My brain is not the same as your brain. If thinking is simply chemicals in motion, why should the chemicals in my brain act the same as in your brain?

We think the same way because our brains are (relatively speaking) the same. If you pulled some areas out of my brain I wouldn't think the same as you.

Yes I do. An atheist who does not believe in a Spiritual God can't then argue for immaterial. Reason and logic can't come from reasonless matter.

But an atheist can believe in abstract objects. Abstract objects have nothing to do with God.

I know they do. But they are being irrational within their worldview. The atheist uses laws of logic and reason but he has no rational foundation to believe these immaterial things can exist in his worldview. He must borrow from the Christian worldview. The atheist will become righteously indignant when he sees injustice. But absolute morality can't exist in an atheist worldview. For there to be absolute morality, a God who is above man must exist. There is no getting around or behind this.

This is a mess. Stick with one topic. Would you like to start a new thread on morality and atheism? I'd be happy to indulge you.

 

[TeeJay]

=Squishes;2722827]Of course not. Chemicals cause things but don't justify things. Google category error.

Exactly! Your brain is a physical organ of your body. But reasoning is not physical. If reasoning is simply the motion of chemicals, then the brain would not necessarily give you a true computation each time the chemicals reacted. And even if the chemical action accidentally gave you a correct computation, you couldn't know that the computation was True.

Induction is hard-wired into our brain. We can't help but generalize beliefs.

"Hard-wired" is physical. Laws of logic are not physical. An inductive argument is one in which it is claimed that the conclusion is likely to be true if the premises are true. Chemicals in motion will not tell you if the premises are true, let alone if the conclusion is true. But when we use our minds (not physical) to reason, we can KNOW FOR SURE that 2 + 2 = 4.

It isn't physical in the same sense "computation" isn't physical, since it can be embodied by many different physical substrates. But all computers are physical, just as all reason is physical.

Reasoning is not physical. You can't weigh it, smell it, hear it, taste it, or touch it. A computer can be programmed to do many things, such as play chess or work logic problems even. But, the computer does not know that what it computes is true or false. And it does not know it is playing chess or working logic problems.

We think the same way because our brains are (relatively speaking) the same. If you pulled some areas out of my brain I wouldn't think the same as you

You can't justify them being the same in an atheist worldview. We all know that human brains are pretty much similar in construction and composition. But you are arguing that reasoning is simply chemical actions. I'm arguing the opposite.

If thinking is simply the motion of chemicals in your brain, how do you know that the chemicals will react in the future as they have in the past? And as you stated above, chemicals cause things but they don't tell you that something is true or false.

But an atheist can believe in abstract objects. Abstract objects have nothing to do with God.

Yes he can. But when he does he is being inconsistent within his worldview. His belief that there should be abstract things like justice, liberty, dignity, respect, etc. make no sense in an atheistic worldview. If human beings are just the accidental result of chemistry working over time, WHY would they be deserving of respect for example. We would not hold a funeral service if a few pounds of baking soda were destroyed by reacting to vinegar. Clearly, humans are not just complex chemical reactions. An atheist has no rational foundation to expect that laws of logic, rational reasoning, or anything abstract would exist within his worldview. When an atheist uses laws of logic, he is affirming the theistic worldview to be true and his atheistic worldview false.

This is a mess. Stick with one topic. Would you like to start a new thread on morality and atheism? I'd be happy to indulge you.

Me thinks you are over reacting. I simply used morality as an example to show that atheism avoids absolutes. An atheist can't justify absolute morality within his worldview. Admitting that there is absolute morality is getting dangerously close to admitting that there must be a God.

But getting back to laws of logic. Question: Is atheistism logical?

Tom

 

[The Barbarian]

Is atheistism logical?

No, it's a typo. Or possibly, a misspelling.

 

[Frayed Knot]

If thinking is simply the motion of chemicals in your brain, how do you know that the chemicals will react in the future as they have in the past?

Seems to me that all of your posts are centered around this one idea, and I'm baffled that you don't see the obvious answer to your own question. Since this is the key point of your arguments, we probably need to address it before moving on.

We have a good idea that our electrochemical computers that we call "brains" give us a fairly reliable picture of what seems to be an external reality, because most of the time, it works. Our brains aren't perfect, but there does seem to be some external reality which we imperfectly perceive.

The problems that our brains have in reasoning tend to be that we infer patterns where no real patterns exist, and infer agency where no agent exists. Over the centuries, we've slowly figured out methods to help us avoid these problems. Those methods are called "science."

 

[GuySmiley]

Seems to me that all of your posts are centered around this one idea, and I'm baffled that you don't see the obvious answer to your own question. Since this is the key point of your arguments, we probably need to address it before moving on.

We have a good idea that our electrochemical computers that we call "brains" give us a fairly reliable picture of what seems to be an external reality, because most of the time, it works. Our brains aren't perfect, but there does seem to be some external reality which we imperfectly perceive.

The problems that our brains have in reasoning tend to be that we infer patterns where no real patterns exist, and infer agency where no agent exists. Over the centuries, we've slowly figured out methods to help us avoid these problems. Those methods are called "science."

We know our "brains" work, because most of the time, they work?

 

[The Barbarian]

We know our "brains" work, because most of the time, they work?

Yep. Believe it or not, science is almost completely inductive.

 

[TeeJay]

=The Barbarian;2723234]No, it's a typo. Or possibly, a misspelling.

Barbarian,

When last we talked, I gave up on you. I did so not because I thought you were winning but because you became too irrational.

I asked, "Shouldn't scientists be asked to reconsider their argument that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago?"

You answered, "For what reason? You've just done the creationist circle dance. 'These fossils can't be old, because they have soft organic material. And soft organic material can't be that old, because these fossils aren't that old."

First, you use "creationist" as if it is a dirty word. You believe in the Creator Jesus Christ. Don't you? If you don't believe in a Creator, how do you explain your own existence and the universe being here?

I think that any rational man would conclude that it is impossible for red tissue to last 65 million years. If you have a rational believeable scenario for how this is possible, let's hear it. But the following does not solveI your dilemma:

After accusing me of circular reasoning above, you wrote: "But we have examples of leaves BURIED FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS, that are still green when first exposed to air.

You are trying to prove that the leaves can remain green for millions of years but you ASSUME they have been burried for millions of years. You are assuming that which you are trying to prove. You must first prove that they "have been buried for millions of years." You can't just assume this is true.

I will ask again: Is atheism logical?

Tom

 

[TeeJay]

=Frayed Knot;2723314]Seems to me that all of your posts are centered around this one idea, and I'm baffled that you don't see the obvious answer to your own question. Since this is the key point of your arguments, we probably need to address it before moving on.

We have a good idea that our electrochemical computers that we call "brains" give us a fairly reliable picture of what seems to be an external reality, because most of the time, it works. Our brains aren't perfect, but there does seem to be some external reality which we imperfectly perceive.

The problems that our brains have in reasoning tend to be that we infer patterns where no real patterns exist, and infer agency where no agent exists. Over the centuries, we've slowly figured out methods to help us avoid these problems. Those methods are called "science."

Frayed,

Again, your brain is a physical organ. Thinking is not physical. You don't reason with your brain. You reason with your mind. Chemicals in motion will not tell you that something is true. Chemicals in motion will tell you that your head itches or your foot hurts when you stub your toe.

Laws of logic are not physical. We know that our thinking works. That's not the dilemma. How can the immaterial lawsof logic and reasoning come from chemicals and moleculesl? In an atheist worldview. there is no rational reason to believe that reason and laws of logic can exist.

Tom

 

[TeeJay]

=The Barbarian;2723664]Yep. Believe it or not, science is almost completely inductive.

Barbarian,

It would be helpful if you would admit one simple truth: Science is neither inductive nor deductive. You are attributing a concrete, personal characteristic to a conceptional abstraction. This logical fallacy is called reification.

Science does not tell us anything. But scientists do when they interpret scientific evidence. All evidence is interpreted through one's worldview (set of presuppositions). Will you at least admit that it is scientists and not science who reason inductively?

And if you have the courage to admit this one simple truth, will you then admit that evidence will be interpreted through one's worldview? It's not hard. I know you can do it. If all evidence was interpreted the same, you and I would not be having this discussion and tOL would go out of business.

Tom

 

[The Barbarian]

When last we talked, I gave up on you. I did so not because I thought you were winning but because you became too irrational.

Well, you know how irrational barbarians are...

I asked, "Shouldn't scientists be asked to reconsider their argument that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago?"

You answered, "For what reason? You've just done the creationist circle dance. 'These fossils can't be old, because they have soft organic material. And soft organic material can't be that old, because these fossils aren't that old."

That is irrational, but creationists said it. I didn't say it.

First, you use "creationist" as if it is a dirty word.

Only in modern usage. And it's not a dirty word, it's just the most common term for an unorthodox version of Chrstian belief.

You believe in the Creator Jesus Christ. Don't you? If you don't believe in a Creator, how do you explain your own existence and the universe being here?

The problem, of course, is that YE creationists don't accept God's word on how He created things. There are some forms of creationism that are consistent with God's word, however.

I think that any rational man would conclude that it is impossible for red tissue to last 65 million years.

As opposed to green? And given that it's not tissue, but a bit of heme and a few other proteins, that's not surprising at all.

If you have a rational believeable scenario for how this is possible, let's hear it.

Some proteins, in the absence of air and microbes, are remarkably stable. Hemoglobin slowly decayed over millions of years in your sample, but heme (a fragment of hemoglobin) survived.

But the following does not solveI your dilemma:

After accusing me of circular reasoning above, you wrote: "But we have examples of leaves BURIED FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS, that are still green when first exposed to air.

They were found in rocks millions of years old. How do we know that? Radiometric testing. How do we know that's valid? We know the rate of decay. How do we know the rate of decay is constant? Because if it changed significantly, the change in the amount of ionizing radiation would have left many traces, such as wiping out life on Earth. Besides, we know it works, because it accurately measured a known event (destruction of Pompeii).

You are trying to prove that the leaves can remain green for millions of years but you ASSUME they have been burried for millions of years.

Nice try. Read above.

You are assuming that which you are trying to prove. You must first prove that they "have been buried for millions of years." You can't just assume this is true.

They led you down the path again, Tom.

I will ask again: Is atheism logical?

I think you mean "reasonable." Logic has to be put in a mathematically sound form. Do that for me, and we'll take a look.

If you're asking me if it's reasonable, I'd say no.

 

[Frayed Knot]

Again, your brain is a physical organ. Thinking is not physical.

Arithmetic is not physical either, but my computer, a physical object, does it quite handily. You're mixing up the object itself (the brain) with our term for what the object does (thinking).

You don't reason with your brain. You reason with your mind.

The mind is what the brain does.

By the way, I used to drive through Mabank all the time, until they built Hwy 175 over on the north side of it. My relatives all live around Jacksonville, where I was born, and I live around Dallas. Mabank is right between them.

 

[voltaire]

They were found in rocks millions of years old. How do we know that? Radiometric testing. How do we know that's valid? We know the rate of decay. How do we know the rate of decay is constant? Because if it changed significantly, the change in the amount of ionizing radiation would have left many traces, such as wiping out life on Earth. Besides, we know it works, because it accurately measured a known event (destruction of Pompeii).

---Barbarian

The change in ionizing radiation would not wipe out all life on earth if it never got close to that life. What makes you think most of the radiation ever reached the life that existed back then? Other traces of it? The traces of it are the creation of all the cratons and their collisions to form the supercontinents and then the breaking up of them several times over with the break up of pangea being the last break up. The formation of all that continental crust and disappearance of old oceanic crust and formation of new oceanic crust in the span of less than 500,000 years is a very major trace of that extra ionizing radiation. The excess radiation would be absorbed by the mantle and core and thus provide the energy for the fast plate tectonics. The excess radiation never would have a chance to reach the life that was developing on shallow continental shelves and on the continents themselves. All of the granite plutons that formed went through most of the accelerated decay of their uranium and other elements while they were still miles below the surface and by the time erosion had removed the sediments above them, all the decaying elements were decaying at a rate that was suitable for life to survive.