Richard Swinburne - Did God Create Abstract Objects?
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 11. 2022
- Abstract objects, like numbers and logic, give God problems. Because they always exist and exist necessarily, abstract objects cannot be created or destroyed. But could God have created abstract objects? If so, how? If not, God would no longer be all-powerful and 100 percent sovereign, as theology requires, because he would not have created everything that exists.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on philosophy of religion: bit.ly/3EQV9uo
Richard Swinburne is a Fellow of the British Academy. He is Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
The balance on my bank account is an abstract object.
I can hardly see it.
I'm actually with Swinburn on this (unusually) even though I'm an atheist. We know for a fact that logic and therefore mathematics is not perfect. The fly in the ointment is Goedel's theorem which proves that no system of logic can prove it's own axioms, so all logical systems are to some extent arbitrary. As Swinburn points out some systems of logic turn out to accord very well with what we observe in reality, which makes them extremely useful, but that's all. Ultimately they are simply useful languages we construct to help us describe the world we experience, and in fact mathematics is one such language.
Being pro-science this works very well for me, because it means the test of a system of logic or mathematics, or any theory, is how well it accords with observations. After all, that's the scientific method. But the conclusion from that is that the scientific 'laws' that we construct are not determinative. Matter and space and time do not behave the way we observe 'because of' Newton's or Einstein's laws, rather the 'laws' of science are simply descriptions, and as we know they are all currently still incomplete ones. So what is the true nature of reality, and what is determinative of what is real and what happens in the universe? I don't know, but that's a separate question.
Our paradigm which is largely shaped by an abstracted language which we use as a mediator of experience denies us the experience of being. If this is the case, then perhaps art and music (abstract in themselves) and meditation, could be the best way to enjoy ourselves, and not be bogged down in maths and science - when it comes to answers to big questions?
@@SimonMclennan I see aesthetics and meditation as the primary ways to come to terms with our own personal internal condition. Science is the primary way we engage with the external world. They overlap though, and I think can provide insights into each other. They're both very different but equally valid and important.
NOOO!! Very much disagree with what you got from this. You stated a very subtle logical fallacy that resulted in your incorrect approach here. You say "no system of logic can prove it's own axioms, so all logical systems are to some extent arbitrary." This is simply an invalid inference. A system of logic being unable to PROVE its own axioms DOES NOT imply that all (or even just the one) systems of logic are to some extent arbitrary. It is TOTALLY possible that there be an exception-less and necessarily, always applicable, system of logic with axioms that are objectively and necessarily true (aka not arbitrary), that is nonetheless unable to have its axioms PROVEN by that system itself. For me, this system is classical logic. Most philosophers may agree with me on that. So the main point here is to note that just because the axioms cant be PROVEN (via their own logical framework) to be true, they nonetheless CAN be KNOWN to be true. You seem to be expressing some sort of logical positivist verificationist view based on this fallacy, where you go on to say something like the only test of a good system of logic is how well it accounts for or coincides with our empirical results. Hard, hard disagree. The logic should be the framework that the empirical results are interpreted through, not the other way around. (im actually not sure if "the other way around" is even possible; meaning, perhaps Kant is correct and the field of all possible experience is delimited by an a priori logical framework)
@@Raiddd__ That was a while ago, but that’s fine. Thanks for the reply. I think you’re over-interpreting ‘to some extent arbitrary’. I’m not going to deny that a necessarily true system of logic is not possible, but I do think it may not be knowable what it is or that it is so. That’s because as an empiricist I’m skeptical of all objective truth claims. Not that I’m denying there is an objective truth, just that it’s probably not knowable with certainty. That’s just empiricism 101 and I think it applies to scientific truths and realist claims, and logical truths.
You say that for you that system is classical logic, but ‘for you’ is an important qualifier. How can you know and can it be proven? In any case I think classical logic is all well and fine, but which one? Propositional logic, or bivalent logic, Boolean logic. Then we have a whole slew of non classical logics such as bivalent logic, fuzzy logic, quantum logic. Classical logic isn’t applicable in all problem domains.
Still, that doesn’t disprove the idea that some monstrous universal Uber-logic isn’t possible, it’s just hard to imagine what such a beast, applicable to all such problem domains, would even be like.
You say systems of logic can be known to be true. How? I think this is where consistency and applicability come in. Are the conclusions of the system consistent, and can we use a system of logic to reach useful conclusions and solve problems. Yes we can, and this is an escape hatch from arbitrariness.
It's amazing to me how many philosophers who are not mathematicians and do not really understand mathematics declare "truths" about mathematics that are completely contrary to the understanding and knowledge of actual mathematicans.
are you saying Swinburne is doing that here? Mathematics itself may not be the best field for specializing in these meta-truths about math. It seems like philosophy of mathematics is the best place to figure out whether numbers exist, what exactly mathematical formulas are expressing, etc.
"useful fictions that can distort our way of thinking..." I've never heard such a wonderfully precise description of gods.
Half brain.
@@MymindW Actually it took far less than half of my brain to see the fictional nature of gods and to understand the dangers inherent to magical/religious thinking.
However, this isn't the case with The True God 💯👍👍🥊🥊🥊💪💪💪
Unless someone has private channel to god(s) how will they know? which god(s)? Zeus? Vishnu? Mithras?
Everyone here of gratitude and appreciation for Life, should read/study 'Plato: complete works', and the 'Periphyseon'.
Many, base themselves as the sole perspective, or ultimate viewing angel, concerning science or thought, and the books above teach a person how to think, how to question, and in what way to view something be it abstract or not. School today, has never taught this. The explanation doesn't matter...how you come to the explanation, the very enquiry is everything, the mere discussion of such things is more profitable then hopes of an explanation even.
"These things are fictions, useful fictions, but fictions nevertheless"
If you mean God is a fiction, what are the initial conditions of your model of reality without God?
@@20july1944 My statement is a direct quote of Swinburn speaking of Abstract Objects.
@@philyogaeveryday321 Then I misunderstood you, as was clear from my question.
Great points! I loved it- it sent my mind racing, not far… I see G_d Entangled in Everything via “Cavitation’s”…
It’s literally in “Everything, Everywhere”… No Matter What! That makes First Principle “Implosion Vortex Wave Dynamics” 100% Holiness because “The Energy” Is Created by the Cavitation’s and it is Omnipresent and Omnipotent…
Vortex “Wells” Creating Implosions from the 3:6:9 Electric Vortex Circuit, First Principle Photosynthesis’s from Exclusion Zones separating Charge, like a plant photosynthesizing Light by splitting molecules, EXACT Same process with my Hydro-Magnetic-Sonoluminescent Theory… It’s the most beautiful explanation of Existence Itself, Phase Transitioning as a Toroid, I have the numbers with the Implosion and Explosion built into clockwise and counterclockwise motion… It’s Glorious! Cavitation’s is where the Action is at… Consciousness… If it Moves, it’s Imploding… I drew a beautiful Mural on my wall last night, from the Greatest Circuit in the World… Anyhow, it matches to 100% perfection, every Ancient Mosaic Tiled Floor ever Uncovered…! ELECTRIC INTELLIGENCE…!… EVERYTHING is a Quantum Fractal from the “First Physical Aperature”… A imploded water bubble that created Charge via Exclusion Zones that are automatically invented as phase transitions to go from Neutral charge to Charged… (+) Charged Hydronium IONS vibrating and (-) creating Honeycomb Structure… If it thinks, moves, or Anything it is 100% Cavitating and Entangled with Everything At All Times… That’s God to me… Experiencing Everything… How you gonna know everything if you don’t do everything… DATA is “KING”…
You're on the right track in my perspective. The universe is fractal in nature and the fractal is tne "cosmic spiral" which is the basic unit of matter and consciousness in the continuum. God is everything everywhere. God is bottom up reality not top down fairy tales.
What in the hell are you talking about?
I'm glad Swinburne can't remember the fifth rule. It proves he's human after all.
He's basically saying God cannot be held to human logic, won't say put in a human cage constructed of logic bars, that He may spring around with anti-logical behavior whenever He wants to. And Peano is about getting beyond "counting poems," i.e., creating an inductive definition of numbers, getting past the irony of numbers being just hearsay distinct and well-ordered, etc. And he mentions some of the paradoxes Peano's successor function raises, i.e., how can we assume the successor "next" function will do exactly what we're assuming it should do? But adding numbers and aggregating things out in the wild are not the same. Addition is an abstract human construct to mirror aggregation, i.e., the whole endeavor of putting groups of things together and having, recognizing a new group made up of the formerly independent things. My view is that if math proves something -- and math doesn't at some point find a way to break this proof -- then we're on some island God has created (for us?), no? IMHO, the most intense human mental effort goes into math proofs. But as Paul Erdos had often said when confronted with a real corker, Math has not advanced enough to answer that question. Indeed, logical entailment is a merciless master. And it's some sort of Platonic somethingorother, right? Sentence utterances, paper publishing notwithstanding.
Even to theorize and define what God is, that is an abstract object built upon the realm of metaphysics and idea. To say it is above, the creator, or entirely independent of the constant physical laws that operate in our observable cosmos, it really makes the whole abstract object more abstract. So it is an easy way out to conclude that God has nothing to do with all these concepts.
When you form a ball you create the form of a ball which is a requisite for having a ball. The form of a ball is a boundary condition for this thing called a ball, a square form is a requirement for having a square!! So, by creating a ball you simultaneously create the spherical form that a ball is!! This boundary condition is exactly what number is to a discreet reality, number is a boundedness that is a requirement for discreetness to exist!! So, number is a consequence and necessity for a discreet reality!!
Interesting point. Mathematics has often developed as an offshoot of a need from a physical theory.
and the reverse seems true too, that physics often develops as an off shoot from past known mathematics.
Calculus is an example. Are there any other examples, to support the word 'often'?
But mathematical truths are fixities anyway. So you can't really reason like that
The ancient Greeks invented trigonometry to study the motion of the stars.
Partial diferential equations
Chaos theory
Fourier transform/theory
Maxwell equations
Riemann-Einstein
Hilbert, Newman work on Quantum Mechanics
The list goes on and on and in both ways. (The above is physics giving rise to math)
To expand on a physical theory, one needs the language to do so. Often, a theoretical physicist will search for a tool in mathematics to help him solidify the claim to his suspicion, if he can't find it, s/he either calls for help or does it himself.
Many a mathematican would often work on physical problems as it was a treasure trove to discovering more math, e.g. the stability of the motion of the rings of Saturn.
Ok, I'm sorry, your examples are a mess. Greek geometry: origins uncertain, as far as I know. Partial differential equations are a subfield of differential calculus, which I mentioned as the prime example. Maxwell's equations don't contain novel mathematics. Riemann developed the pure mathematics long before Einstein, so what does "Riemann-Einstein" mean in the present context? Hilbert and von Neumann (= Newman?) were mathematicians, not physicists, who provided mathematically definite foundations for quantum mechanics. The early quantum theorists simply used preexisting maths, they didn't invent any new maths. Chaos theory, maybe, but what's the new mathematics here?
Above the Academy's entrance: Let no one enter who is ignorant of geometry. Probably because shapes clear examples of Forms, they aren't mind dependent, and they have necessary properties that are perfectly precise... and nothing in the physical world has them, so if we know the truths of geometry, we know a world that is superior to this one. It is discoveries in that world--useful formulas, relations, properties--that fuel the discoveries in this world. I imagine the objects in the superior world are offended, but unchanged by, Dr. Swinburne's opinion.
Derrida exposed the contradiction inherent in the Platonic view of the abstract ideal governing the "category."
Mr Swinburne should read Flatland again. He and others do no grasp the idea there are things we cannot know. He might also study Jung. As for his comments on Plato, again, I do not think he grasps the idea behind the Forms.
kind of a radical thing to say about Swinburne
@@daman7387 Hi Damian. Watched that interview again. I stand by my original response. In all this is the avoided topic. The mystical experience that provides an expanded view of reality. Plato understood this. Jung understood this. I understand this.
As far a perfect platonic forms like a platonic square are concerned, there may not be a perfect square in existence in material reality in terms of perfect measures of its sides?? But we arrived at that idea of a perfect square by seeing square shapes and inferring from those shapes that their sides must be exactly equal in measure!! But in this material reality there may not be perfect squares in existence due to our epistemic limitations in measuring lengths and hence creating such a square?? So, it may be true that perfect shapes are mere inferences from imperfect shapes we observe in this world?? But the question is in my opinion is, by what process did we infer that there must be a perfect square with exact measures for each side?? That process is logic, we see a square imperfect as it may be and in our epistemic limitations we infer that the sides look exactly equal, and so we measure the square and find that they are not exactly equal in measure and that we are not precise enough to measure lengths down to such precision, but we accede to the possibility that there must be a perfect square with perfect lengths which this imperfect square was fashioned after?? So, platonic forms may be mere inferences from imperfect forms but the means to that inference is logic which is an invariant in my opinion, and hence as perfect as a perfection can be?? Invariant because logical validity itself is not predicated on truth but only on logical consequence!! But number differs from forms in that number is far more intrinsic, forms depend on their measures for their perfection but one rock on the ground is one rock regardless of how it’s shaped, regardless of its weight, color or any other quality other than its singularity defining it as one rock!!
>the means to that inference is logic which is an invariant in my opinion, and hence as perfect as a perfection can be...
How do you square that with Goedel's theorem, doesn't that exclude the possibility of a perfect system of logic?
What if we are bound within a system that has "x" amount of discoverable rules, who bound and created said system and why in the heck would us simple humans think whatever created our universe is bound to anything at all, much less rules implaced by sentient beings that merely reflect interpretations of rules created by the builder of our universe. Can anyone actually, and with facts, state what existed before our universe of indeed all that exists within our universe? We can't even count everything in our universe. Hmmmm and we keep finding things that do not behave as expected....
I like a proper Brit accent when hearing fairy tales.
Aristotle says the known thing is recieved according to the mode of the knower. This is true: when senseless people listen to things they don't understand, all they hear is nonsense.
@@lukeabbott3591
Spoken like a true expert.
@@browngreen933 I'm not talking about Swinburne
My gut feeling is that mathematics is discovered and that "a different math" (beyond changing the symbols or proposing new methods) could not in fact be invented, like Swinburne clumsily proposes. He seems to suggest that math is what it is only because it is useful to us, but that strikes me as wrong. It should be easy to disprove that math is discovered. Just invent another one, but to my knowledge, no one ever has done that.
Mathematicians frequently create alternative systems of arithmetic by starting from different axioms.
Form is thought's version of matter. Though the "creators" of tables or chairs find forms useful their usefulness lies in their consistent application. Not in their reality or "self-consistency".
Real things are not inferred they are sensed. Forms are partially sensed and partially imposed. This imposition is only useful if it is reinforced by what is sensed: if it is consistent with conscious reality. Thus the rules of logic are not "abstract", numbers and their operations are not consistent with themselves- they are not self consistent, they are consistent with the world.
So how should we regard numbers and logic? As real "things" that we can discover, or as imposed things whose usefulness lie in their consistency with the world? If we rely solely on consciousness numbers and logic do not exist: they cannot be sensed. If we rely on the linguistic mind their "discovery" is found in Plato's "Meno". Their discovery is indoctrinated by a tutorial process. The Meno shows this process but it is not explicitly stated as an algorithm. It goes something like this;1.assertion, 2.assumption, 3.application of assumption to assertion, 4.checking for consistency: if the assumption reaffirms the assertions, 5.memorization of the assumptions if consistency is found.
Trouble comes however when the assertions can not be confirmed consciously. Godel outlines this with his incompleteness theorem. It is revealed in Euclid's assertions about lines being made of points. To emphasize this lack of confirmation ask yourself why matter is made of fundamental particles and not money? How do we know that molecular or atomic reactions are not better modeled on financial transactions and tools than on particles, forces, spin, charge and probability?
Great video. Fictions indeed. Without the one who can make red, there can be no redness. Me, St. Aquinas, Descartes, , Pascal, Plantinga and SpongeBob all agree with him.
SpongeBob? How so?
Descartes? I seriously doubt it. (No pun intended, but it's there, anyway.)
thats a small group compared to the people who disagree
Huh?
God asks Job, “Who has put wisdom in the inward parts, or given understanding to the mind?” Bible (Job 38:36).
logically necessary beings cannot coexist otherwise this would be a logical paradox. So the oneness is a logical attribut of the necessary being.
Maybe The universe explain s something to someone like quantum stuff shows locality and state when asked
Say created a pool table. I am now its creator. Then i create another, then another and so on. I am the pool table's creator, however, I am in no control over where the pool table is standing nor its surroundings. If there is a creator of sorts. It resides in a realm created for it. Think, fractals in the sense that size or scale doesn't exist. It is only relative to the observer. But in fact you can scale up or down infinitely.
Agreed, in fact, since you can scale up or down infinitely, scale can be taken as a fourth spatial dimension. Translation along this dimension, would appear to a stationary observer, as expansion/contraction. There must also be an associated time dilation, for the perceived speed of light to remain constant. Maybe that's what time is... an emergent consequence of the universe "traveling" in this 4th dimension, through it's expansion. Seems to be a point in favor of Sir Penrose CCC theory, in some form.
@@David.C.Velasquez Do abstract objects exist in any spatial dimensions?
@@vmb326 I would say yes, but in the context of this video, we're speaking of strictly immaterial forms, patterns or "blueprints" if you will.
@@David.C.Velasquez I guess it is then a question of if there are no minds to ponder the abstract concepts (which would be encoded somehow paper/neurons/binary) then do they still exist?
For example - before someone perceived the Apple Watch then the Apple Watch abstract concept or information "meme" did not exist. Sure, it existed in potentia of all the dominoes which came before it... sun dials, sand, water clocks, digital watches, microchips etc... so since it didnt exist... once the "meme" is lost then the abstract concept is also lost.
So, yes I think I would say the abstract concept therefore must physically exist in an encoded form.
V.interesting hmm
Suppose god exists, can i say one god? Suppose god created two universes, is this two has any meaning at all? If it's due to convention and no convention is established yet,then this two and one have no meaning at all.
But that seems false, it seems one god has meaning and two universes has meaning.
And also if there're no rules of inference,then how we can discover god.
And why this set of conventions ( logic,mathematics ) are so powerfull and effective if they're not based on anything real?
And also he doesn't explain fully why if they're abstract objects,that would be a problem for god, and also for the simplicity of god we can ask the same questions he asked for certain rules being in god, we can ask why is god rational? Why he's good and why he's superintelligent?
And also algebra and arthmethic existed before peano's axioms have been laid.
Something that doesn't exist cannot create.
I something is needed to create the universe then something else is needed to create it. Only fair. If it can be posited that that thing does not need creation then it can be posited the universe does not need creation.
@@SandipChitale God is the eternally infinite multiverse itself, no truth could be more clear... IMHO
I would have to write an essay-length commentary, so let it suffice to say that I find Swinburn's arguments faulty from beginning to end.
Emmanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason develops the proposition that since we are creatures of three dimensions, we are born with certain abstract concepts of three dimensional objects, for example volume, thickness, height. Furthermore, we have no problem conceptualizing a ball or for that matter the earth, our ability to abstract is infinite.
Without Jesus we would never know the fulness of God. Jesus is the key to the universe for “all things have been created through him” So I’m waiting on Jesus. He gives me strength. As a single mother things aren’t isn’t easy on me. I’m overwhelmed at times because both of my children are autistic. I’m desperately struggling trying to support them and myself because like so many others. I lost my job as a social worker at Forsyth hospital because I declined the vaccine. I declined because of my pre existing health condition lupus and heart disease. I was denied my medical/religious exemption. I wish I could go back to the hospital but the mandate is still in place for hospitals that participate in Medicare and Medicaid. I’m waitressing and I’m so thankful to be working again, but I’m not making nearly enough to make ends meet. But God continues to help me. I get harassed and called names for simply asking for prayers, but prayers are all we need to get by, and when you’re a real christian people will always crucify you. Thankfully, God gives me strength to keep going. I have faith God will provide. He HAS THIS FAR. Please pray for me and my children.
Extremely exhausting trying to prove the existence of an imaginary invisible thing.
The cause of everything is not imaginary.
What is the cause of everything, Pen?
@@JungleJargon Yes it is. God is made up and his attributes come from the Mesopotamian goddess Inanna.
@@20july1944 Guess again.
@@kos-mos1127 You believe anything you are told to believe.
What I want to know, after getting to the point eventually...is "does that mean god created fake news?"... I.e. are you taking the bad with the good? Or are you going to cherry pick and say... ooo well, free will, god created the good bits but all the crap is the other guy or human free will?
Or maybe it's all just us and the universe?
This is a demonstration on how to be fundamentally inconsistent.
Assume the creator of logic is subordinate to logic.
he does not think God created logic
Guys defines number are big mistake . For instance Russell found numbers classe are falacies. He imagines GOD atributes without honest hipotesy. For instance How he knows GOD minds ? Has he brains inside GOD minds principles ? Unbeliveble dishonest guys. Instead show up philosophy though axiom he prefered figure out it in abstract and baseless speculations..
we can be very confident that thoughts exist.. the question that arises is how did they originate... were they always present and why 🤔
That's the ultimate question pertaining to Plato's realism.
You say we can be confident thoughts exist, as though thoughts are some ontologically independent thing.
I would say we can be confident our minds exist and a thought may just be a current state of our mind.
@@10penpaper Plato has had an impact in many other thinkers of its time as well... they all together have conttibuted to the level of understanding that many of us take for granted today...
@@mrfabulous4640 "thought may just be a current state of our mind"
they're still to be acknowledged and categorized accordingly since the seem to be closely related to life... intelligent behavior also requires their existence 🤔
Thoughts evolved with language. Our hominid ancestors 2 plus million years ago likely had limited thoughts. 7 million years or so we where throwing poop at each other. Not much thought then. Now we put a lot of thought into poop jokes.
Mr Swinburne is wrong. If I add two halfs of glass of water into one glass, and then add a third half, one of those halfs will pour out, but this half will not dissapear. Things do not dissapear, as what is, is, and what is not, is not. His example is interesting, but it contradicts the concept of existense. There is no "dissapearing".
We create God and create what God create.
What method could accomplish that?
Isn’t God an abstract object?
No
Very thought provoking! some thinkers have postulated that GOD IS Mathematics and that the two notions are inseparable and have been true for eternity!
I can not begin to imagine how even a half intelligent person, let alone extremely intelligent people can believe in the existence of something as extreme as god with not only a total lack of proof, but with so many indications that there is no such being
1. Why would god choose to hide ?
2. Why would a god create a universe of such chaos, misery, suffering and why would they allow it to continue even if they did not cause it ?
I think the main reason for intelligent people would be either (a) personal experience/phenomena, which is not reproducible, and is therefore not scientific in nature, and does not require scientific proof, and/or (b) logical reasoning that some would find insufficient but they find sufficient enough and corresponds to worldview and experience.
The issues you raise in (1) and (2) are also problems for a god typical of the Abrahamic religions (certainly what the man being interviewed believes), but wouldn’t really be an issue for pantheists or panentheists, nor for deists or adherents of panpsychism. The idea of god creating misery on earth is probably a bit too “zoomed in” of a view of god as our personal man in the sky - the Cloud Man and His Son view. But that’s only one view. I think it’s important that atheists recognize that they need an argument that isn’t only geared towards dominant narratives of god. While many religious people have a god that’s basically Santa Claus, many intelligent people are theists for other reasons
What are the initial conditions of your non-God model of reality?
@@20july1944 it'd hv to be sone brute fact
@@20july1944 well, I am a theist, but I don’t think that gets me to a better logical place than atheism does, because the “initial conditions” problem is the same either way. Either God was necessary or the Universe was or the Quantum Laws were - a first cause of some sort. That’s the classical problem. But it may be that framing the problem in this way of initial conditions is incorrect. And there’s no issue with infinity in mathematics - which would be as relevant for either theism or atheism
@@chadthecurator1974 How would laws have causative power?
Yes, God created the abstract objects, the objects are us; His people.
I just love it when people like you say nonsensical bs that holds no proof you just say things like this with zero evidence. Why say something you can't back up?
By definition abstract objects don't have to be created to exist, and the idea is that all abstract objects exist necessarily, therefore God (or any god) could not have created them. That includes mathematics and the laws of physics. In that scenario, God is far less powerful; more like a chooser rather than a creator, deciding *what* exists (among the infinite possibilities) rather than *how* they exist. This is a blow to a certain concept of God, which many religious people don't like, but instead of arguing on serious philosophical ground, this guy resorts to circular reasoning.
Why can't it be the case that God precedes these abstract entities or categorical realms, which he also creates? That would seem to be more in line with the traditional idea of a completely transcendent God.
It’s a good thought - I think that the issue with these objects is that they are thought of as necessary/essential/uncreatable. They don’t emerge and dont require intelligence to emerge. Which is similar to the classic Abrahamic perspective on God. In my view, the type of god pushed by that perspective is a bit impoverished from full transcendence, because its seen as outside of reality. I find the mystical traditions within Abrahamic religions and Hinduism, or the ideas in panentheism, to be more convincing - that these objects, like us, are within God - rather than separate creations of it.
If God created everything, what is God made of? Where did that stuff come from?
@@mazolab That doesn't help
@@mazolab That I can get on board with. But its nothing like the God of any religion.
Do we worship this essence? I don't understand the point of it.
@@mazolab people have been contemplating the question for thousands of years and we're no closer. Is it likely I will find the answers? Would a life spent searching be wasted?
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability:
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
So you are saying there is a god?
The Vedas describe everything as eternally coexisting with God as possibilities. God is the supreme controller and the supreme enjoyer, but does not create anything.
You reference the Vedas often, might I ask, if you were to recommend an english translation of the Vedas, which might that be?
Does the Mahabhrata comprise the 4 Vedas within or atleast the essence of them in anyway?
Brahman?
Ws@@SandipChitale It depends. Brahman has somewhat different meanings in different contexts. Most commonly now Brahman means a state without distinctions, which is purely the sat feature of sat-cit-ānanda.All the various concepts and activities are divisions of cit. The motivations for choosing are in ānanda.
No he didn't,,he told me he created everything but them,,he said they were allready here when he created the universe & couldn't do out about it.
why are abstract objects necessary?
Because they couldn't be any other way than they actually are, and you couldn't have a Universe without them.
For example, you might think that there's no possible way the world could have been where "2+2=4" or "yellow is a color" aren't true. So, these things are true in every "possible world" as philosophers say. A truth that holds in every possible world means the same thing as a necessary truth. That just means it's true no matter what. Hopefully this helps. Was this what you were asking?
"Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion " Ok...
God is an abstract object: a mathematical one
No, I believe Swinburne is incorrect, mathematics is discovered, not invented. There's numerous mathematical expressions that have no analogues in human perception, such as imaginary numbers, sqrt -2 etc. Yet they are real in a Platonic sense and have practical application in the physical world.
Brilliantly said! What Swinburn articulates here, that abstract objects including Math are useful concepts created by intelligent beings (humans) builds on the brilliant ideas of the Mathematical Intuitionists / Constructivists like Poincare, Brouwer, and echoes thoughts of polymath geniuses like Von Neumann and Feynman. I’ll leave the God aspect of the discussion alone as a separate topic, but the clear articulation of abstract objects being the creation of intelligent beings was very well done.
If God is of everything, ever. God is of all concepts, all thoughts, all things, all words claimed. The" good", the "bad"
If God is of "all" he is of ALL.
You are dealing with an intelligence so far beyond human thought it is incomprehensible. This intelligence is pure being itself and everything is contained within it. The idea that abstraction is somehow beyond it or outside it, when abstraction is a very small part of its expression is beyond puerile. To anthropomorphize God as a being independent of all expression is a foundational error. One might just say the wave in independent of the ocean.
........at its most simple and basic, Mathematics are the tool we use to describe our shared reality, a tool and not the actual "firmament" of said reality. God made the box, and we live in the box, and it is our nature to discover each and every nook and cranny and use our tools on 'em. PEACE, and God bless.
Quite remarkable that the Oxford professor doesn't understand that no one claims that the axioms or theorems of mathematics (or any other formal system) are necessary. It's not about the axioms or theorems but about the derivation of the theorems from the axioms. It's necessary that the theorems follow from the axioms (= the derivation can't be an "invention"), otherwise the theorems themselves would be axioms.
So, IF God is of all things. He is of ALL things. Concepts, abstractions, thoughts, claims spoken, the tangible, and the imaginative. God would be what humans claim "good" and "bad". If God is all, he is all of it.
This guy's God is "All.. oh except this, that, and that". Sounds like blinded bias.
You're on the right track, but the mistake is believing in the independent existence of 'things'. All experience is within an immaterial consciousness, and therefore, 'things' are simply nominal concepts for interactive convenience, but in reality there are no 'things' that exist independent of consciousness. God, the being of all, is really no thing. It is completely formless. It is not contained within anything. And through this no thing that is eternal and infinite, all conscious experience arises.
@@Shane7492 that's a good thought.
But as this journey to understanding still goes on, your claim is not proven. Consciousness could very well be just material and God could be either (or both) immaterial and material, if God even exists. Who knows.
I was just pointing out the cracks in this quacks logic.
@@Oliver-rw4up Anything material existing outside of consciousness is completely unverifiable and not at all based on actual experience or evidence. It's as unreasonable as believing there is a being outside of the universe that created the universe. Your sensations, perceptions, thoughts, feelings, etc. are not material. They are experiences within a consciousness that is no form or substance. It's a self evident truth based on actual experience.
No, my statement still stands.
@@Oliver-rw4up Which statement?
Sorry but Peano's axioms were proposed thousands of years after humans successfully used arithmetics and more advanced mathematics. The axioms were proposed to explain how a successful arithmetic system might work as opposed to creating one. Moreover, the "symbol manipulation" explanation of mathematics (his way to say humans invented the rules) are a failed attempt by formalism to explain the integration problem and fundamental philosophy of mathematics. I am thoroughly disappointed in this episode. It rehashes old failed arguments or fails to see that the fundamental issues in the philosophy of mathematics are still unsolved. I urge everyone to read Øyvind's Linnebo's excellent book on the philosophy of mathematics.
These hypothetical alternative mathematics he describes could in fact exist in other universes in a hypothesized multiverse.
What couldn’t, hence it’s utter ridiculousness not to mention it’s unbearable parsimony.
I can't believe you are asking me to think.I know, God did it!
End of discussion. So says the average person.
Did God create abstract objects??
Consider number, number is a direct consequence of a discreet reality!! You can see this clearly by way of analogy, if you took sand and formed it into a ball the shape of the ball is a boundary condition which make the ball look like a ball, it’s an extrinsic boundary!!
Number is a consequence of a discreet reality, discreetness is characterized by boundedness and such boundedness defines number!! If you have several discreet objects in a reality you have a number of such objects in that reality!!
So by creating a discreet reality God created number alongside it as a condition necessary for a discreet reality to exist!! Again by way of analogy by creating a donut you create a hole in its middle which is necessary for a donut to be a donut!! But the hole appears together with the donut. You could say that the traditional donut is metaphysically grounded on the hole in its middle!!
As far as logic is concerned, logic is predicated on logical consequence or entailment and logical entailment is what defines every equation in mathematics, the equal sign means that everything before an operation is performed on some values on the left side exactly equals everything after the operation on its left, and that also is a conservation of symmetry!! Logical entailment is a conservation of symmetry!!!
Mathematics describes the world because any world worthy of being called a world has logical entailment gluing that world together as a coherent self-consistent whole. Causality is built on logical consequence!!
Just wasted another 10 minutes hoping Swinburne would say something convincing. When will I ever learn?
Is there truth or false of what's claimed through words? If God is of everything nothing is invented, it (all things) already exists.
So... I'm taken back at how offensively contradictory his ramblings are..
In a nutshell he claims the only thing that's true or not true is what humans say? The sentence itself? What is in speech that makes something false? God did not make math...or abstract things it is humans invented it. Human inventions don't exist because God didn't make it? What on earth is Swinburne going on about. It sounds like blinded bias.
@@Oliver-rw4up I always thought Swinburne could land a part in a movie as an archbishop who declares enemies of the King as heretics worthy of burning at the stake. Maybe that is the origin of his name, "burner of swine", lol 😆.
Wasted how? This is high entertainment especially Robert’s body language of defeat every time Swinburne appears on a segment.
This guy's like, "Possibilities are impossible," and "A personal God is more simplistic than possibilities being possible." Worst philosopher ever.
Abstract concepts are what is required to see there’s a Creator of the physical reality that cannot produce itself.
Physical reality is not produced it collapses into being.
This holds absolutely no value because there are things we can't see so what would be the point in making and creating things we can't see? You are using visualization so if that's the case seeing is believing therefore God does not exist because we can't see him.
@@kos-mos1127 The collapse is from the dilation of time and distance due to the mass in the vicinity.
you have a serious fight with yourself... you seem to be so furious with God for not proving his existence to you that you keep on externalizing your lack of faith by even taking a sarcastic attitude every time you mention it
God IS an abstract object!
No human invented the number (i)
Pure nonsense. Abstractions like numbers aren't invented. We're not talking about symbols and conventions.
It all comes down to our ultimate question: why is there something rather than nothing? I've always said if there were truly nothing that would even include abstractions.
Our Creator created all the visible images we observe but only as information that has to be processed by our created minds. The observer of those images is an AI which is what I AM, the first of all creation but also as information.
Seems like God “created” abstract objects, if they do exist, insofar as God was the first (and at one point, only) being to comprehend them.
A square couldn’t have been imagined “before” or “independent” of God, so in that sense God is responsible for their existence… if in fact they do exist
RS is delusional. Man did not invent 'arithmetic', he discovered mathematics. Pi has a value independent of man, as are all equations. Certainly an universal system of symbols is needed to express equations. But, inventing symbols is not inventing values. Does RS postulate that different people at a different time would have 'invented' another value for Pi? RS is well past his shelf date.
Homosapiens created abstract objects. How isn't that a no-brainer?
There doesn't seem to be a technical explanation for how we could do it. How is any object defined? How is the most abstract object defined?
@@PaulHoward108 For starters, abstract objects are just ideas in the mind and represent ways human beings have so far carved up, put together, dissected and defined aspects of the world in order to understand it better, at first so we could survive in it, but later, also, out of pure curiosity.
Math is discovered not invented, it was a gift from God. Hence “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences” an undeniable fact.
@@JudoMateo The unreasonable effectiveness thing is a poetic remark, not a statement of fact.
@@longcastle4863 Tangible objects are ideas also, just more detailed. For example, brains are ideas that symbolize consciousness in animal species. Abstract concepts are spaces in which physical things exist, and things can't exist without them.
What? No, numbers and logic have not always existed. They are literally made-up tools to map to reality that humans took a long time to invent. You can really tell this guy is an apologist preacher arguing towards a preset conclusion, not an scholar trying to find truth.
God is all matter. God is nature, plants, the earth the sun and everything in between. We are god, god is us.
Thanks Bob, surprisingly, I am just thinking of the things you are discussing with Richard. Let's go back to LORD God in Bible or LORD God of Abraham, supposingly, He is LORD Jesus Christ in order to understand what is the difference between the created and the begotten. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Jn1:1 NIV) and LORD Jesus Christ was Word that became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (Jn1:14) Jesus said: "“I am the way and the truth and the life." (Jn14:6 NIV). Therefore, the abstract things are supposed to be God the Word, which are not created at all but everlasting existence. Anything that is consistent with God the Word (Information, the Abstract Things) is not created at all. However, anything that is not consistent with God is to be created or formed, i.e. will be given order or structure, in other words, God create our world (universe) from an ultimate chaos (Gn1:2). Get rid of Judaism's and most scientists' ideas that the universe equals to God. God created the world with purpose to save one of His Lost Son (Lucifer or Esau?). Life comes from life, and there must be a metaverse which is the house of God implied in the first Hebrew word of Tora, בראשית. The best understanding for Word and LORD and God is the concept of superposition of quantum mechanics, very plainly described in Deut 6:4 NIV: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One.
Here is the brief description on Creatio ex nihilo:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jh1:1 NIV; Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One: Deut 6:4 NIV. God The Word & LORD are One The Infinite (Superposition in term of quantum mechanics). He Exists (One) & He Does Not Exist (Nothing caused by Self Contraction of One). Lucifer or Esau followed his own freewill to get into Nothing the Absolute; in term of cosmology, he was the singularity of Big Bang the Original, and he was fully reduced to an ultimate chaos defined as a closed system in which every point holds a same speed. The points are called the stuff of God because they came from House of God. Creatio ex nihilo of God started the ultimate chaos (Gn1:2) with purpose to save Lucifer or Esau or bring forth order from the ultimate chaos.
It's a wrong question! God is the Life! And of course Life can realize itself and it created everything. Through abstractions (that are in a way renunciations in thinking or shortages of thinking) Life is able to intervene on itself, for self transformation and realization..
The presenter, if he is sincerely seeking the ultimate truth, should stay true to scientific objectivity if he is to achieve his goal. But he is definitely biased against the existence of the creator. The result is as we see in this channel he has not achieved his goal, after years of deliberations with very sophisticated brainy people and never will!
He thinks that's okay but it truly isn't! He is misleading himself and the viewers away from the ultimate truth which is definitely knowable once the unscientific bias against the true and ultimate truth itself is out of the way! What an irony for a channel that claims to seek to be closer to the truth!
No he isn't misleading anyone, we are all in control of our own actions our own lives our own emotions therefore if a person is being mislead it is because they want to be mislead.
Because there is more evidence against God than for it.He had conversation with lots of intelligent people on earth and still doesn't favour a creator so I think that tells us something.
No. Next. Might as well have a debate about what a unicorn's favourite food is.
Go away
god is the condition of the intelligibility of the cosmos. the intelligibility of the cosmos is the condition of achieving syntactic meaning. without the intrinsic intelligibility of the cosmos, we cannot say anything true of anything else, and we subsequently thus must accept a radical skepticism. we don’t accept a radical skepticism. thus, the cosmos is intrinsically intelligible. and, thus, the god is the condition of the intelligibility of the cosmos.
If God turned his back and stopped observing us we may collapse into a wave function of nothingness ourseleves.
We witness waves and fields created out of nothing then turned into objects everytime you open your eyes.
God wouldn't have to do much more than us as observers to create the universe.
Is that your belief or more than that?
Do you think we are created in God's image?
If your asking me that? yes 👍! the rest is just quantum.physics .
@@dadsonworldwide3238 no I don’t think we are.
@@therick363 Well, I can assure you that inside my soul command center I formulated the spirit of this text to then, through my brain, that is consciously aware of my fingers and this device I send it to you. Testable repeatedable idealism to physicalism.
I pray you don't have to wrestle with God to many years I've seen just how exhausting that can be.
So many years of my life witnessing people at work fighting against it to then just finally submit late in life.
@@dadsonworldwide3238 …how and what does any of that have to do with your OP?
Swinburn has nothing interesting to say but at least his voice is extremely annoying.
This made me laugh out loud, but it is a bit mean 😂 you didn’t like the first response though? I thought it was an interesting take on platonic objects
I don't think humans invented arithmetic. I'm pretty sure arithmetic came from God at creation and probably has always been into play with God.