Re: Defense of Theism pt 1

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <>
Date: Mon Jun 20 2005 - 18:54:41 EDT

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:37:00 -0500 "Glenn Morton"
<> writes:
> The series of posts will outline some thoughts I have why theism is
> better
> than the other options, atheism, agnosticism, pantheism etc.
> <snip>
> Although science may solve the problem of how the universe began, it
> cannot
> answer the question: Why does the universe bother to exist? I don't
> know the
> answer to that." (Hawking, 1993, p. 99)
> <snip>
> Now, looking at the options for the reason of the universe's
> existence (or
> at least the ones I can think of), we have
> 1. God
> 2. the universe itself
> 3. logic
> 4. math
> 5. vacuum
> 6. inflaton field
> 7. ourselves
> <snip>
If we start with utter nothingness, no equations, no logic, no time, no
matter, how is it possible for utter nothingness to decide to put
into play
a large equation in which is embedded the tensor for the four
forces as we know them today. This is what utter nothingness had to
be able
to generate, if there is not something at the origin, possessing a mind
capable of generating such things. Few humans today actually
understand this
math and it requires years of study for them, yet, to reject a Creator
requires that utter nothingness be capable of multidimensional tensor
analysis. This is a schematic of the tensor which nothingness must have
> <snip>

I'm breaking this up and considering just the one part in my response. in
order to avoid building up a massive file. This considers just the matter
of math. I noted logic in a separate post.

What follows in Glenn's post seems to me to take us out of math into
physical theory. I want to stick to math. First, contemporary number
theory begins with the null class, which contains nothing, and goes on
from there. I guess this could be viewed as constructing the whole out of
nothing, but I rather think that there has to be a class in order to
construct other classes, not to mention mathematicians to do the
constructing. But a mathematical class is an abstraction, whether null or
containing members. There are concrete classes, like the class of all
Thomas Jefferson's descendants, recently perceived to be larger than
earlier admitted. Note that the number that applies, yet unknown, is a
class which is clearly different from the persons living, dead, and yet
to be born, making up the physical class.

What can I construct out of numbers? out of points, lines, plane figures,
solids, hypersolids? alephs and omegas? Nothing! A scientists uses the
various mathematical constructs to formulate theories that describe
aspects of the universe, ideally. But who confuses E=mc^2 with any part
of the word she lives in? Everybody but a few folks who have an ax to
produce /ex nihilo/ in order to grind it separate description from
construction. There are various spots where /creatio ex nihilo/ is
tacitly called upon without acknowledgement of the Creator.
Received on Mon Jun 20 19:00:25 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 20 2005 - 19:00:34 EDT