From: "kbdmm360@yahoo.co.jp" <kbdmm360@yahoo.co.jp> Subject: Mind Matters Science Can and Does Point to God's Existence In mathematics, a singularity can be understood as division by zero, which is undefined mathematically. In this sense, a singularity in... https://www.patheos.com/blogs/
 SCIENCE CAN AND DOES POINT TO GOD’S EXISTENCENatural science is not at all methodologically naturalist — it routinely points to causes outside of nature. MICHAEL EGNOR OCTOBER 3, 2021 Share
In my recent debate at Theology Unleashed, with Matt Dillahunty, Dillahunty made the claim that science necessarily follows methodological naturalism, allowing only for causes within nature. This is a common assertion by atheists. It’s wrong, and here’s why: First we need to start with the definition of science. Despite the huge literature on this topic and the great confusion about the answer, I think the answer is relatively simple. Classical philosophers defined science (scientia) as the systematic study of effects according to their causes. To clarify, consider the three assertions in this definition: 1) science is systematic — that is, it is not merely the occasional musing or haphazard insight but an organized planned course of action to deepen understanding. 2) science is the study of effects — that is, it is the study of things that we can know and/or observe. 3) science studies effects by exploring their causes. The causes studied by science can be any of Aristotle’s four causes — material, formal, efficient, or final. A metallurgist studies material causes, a taxonomist studies formal causes, a physicist studies efficient causes, and archaeologist studies final causes. In the traditional understanding, all systematic study of effects according to causes is science. This includes theology and the various subdisciplines of philosophy, ethics, as well as natural science. What we moderns call science classical philosophers would call natural science or natural philosophy. So science in the modern world is really the systematic study of natural effects according to their causes. Note that science studies natural effects and does not and cannot specify whether the causes must be natural or supernatural. To constrain science to the search for natural causes is to introduce inherent error into scientific investigation — the error is that if supernatural causes exist, then science would be blind to them and therefore would not be good science. If we are to understand natural effects, we must be open to all kinds of causes, including causes that transcend nature. To restrict causes in natural science to causes within nature itself is to impose an ideological bias on the science and thus make science a slave of ideology instead of truth. This is obviously what atheists do when they insist upon methodological naturalism. Note also that the insistence upon methodological naturalism means that atheists can’t even plausibly claim that science provides no evidence for God’s existence, which of course they claim all the time as Dillahunty did in our debate. If you preclude the supernatural a priori from scientific evidence, then you can’t logically argue that scientific evidence refutes the existence of the supernatural. Yet atheists do this all the time — they argue at the same time that science is methodologically naturalist, and that science demonstrates that God doesn’t exist.  artist’s conception of a black holeAtheists don’t even understand their own contradictions. Cognitive dissonance plagues atheism at every step. So science must include the possibility of supernatural causes if it is to seek the truth without ideological bias. And the reality is that science does routinely invoke causes outside of nature. The most obvious example is the Big Bang. To understand this, consider the singularity that cosmologists universally agree was the source of the Big Bang and the singularities that give rise to black holes. A singularity in general relativity is a location where the quantities necessary to describe the gravitational field are lost in infinity. Thus space-time at that location is undefined. In mathematics, a singularity can be understood as division by zero, which is undefined mathematically. In this sense, a singularity in physics is undefined physically. Thus, a singularity is not within nature as understood by modern science. It cannot be known in itself by any theory in science. There are, of course, countless other examples of supernatural (i.e. extra-natural) causes recognized in natural science – the mathematical equations of modern physics are excellent examples. The field equations of general relativity, Schrödinger’s equation, Newton’s equation of gravitation and Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism are not “things” that exist in nature — mathematical equations have no mass, density, location, or temperature. Yet they are the backbone of modern physics and are ubiquitously referred to by scientists as causes, at least in the formal sense. Given that natural science is the systematic study of natural effects according to (all) their causes, the extra-natural nature of singularities or mathematics is not a problem at all. While science cannot define the singularity in itself, it can know things about the singularity that allow us to understand natural effects in our universe. We can know three things about extra-natural singularities: 1) We can know what singularities are not — they aren’t quantifiable, they don’t have dimensions, they don’t have color or shape or electrical charge. This negative knowledge doesn’t give us a complete picture of singularities of course, but it does help us to understand them in the sense that we know what they are not. 2) We can know the effects of singularities in the natural world — we know that a singularity gave rise to the Big Bang and that singularities are at the centers of black holes. This knowledge is of extraordinary use to science — the understanding of the natural effects of the extra-natural singularities of the Big Bang and in black holes is the foundation of modern cosmology. 3) We can know something about singularities by analogy — it is common for example to represent black holes as deep pits in a stretched rubber membrane with the membrane representing space-time. These analogies help us to partially understand what singularities are. To see how this definition of science and routine scientific method of exploring natural effects by understanding all causes — natural and supernatural — is applicable to proving the existence of God, consider the traditional theological methods by which we can know God. Classical theologians point out that we cannot know God as He is. Our supernatural Creator so transcends us that no knowledge of Him on our part can be complete or direct. We can only know Him indirectly and incompletely. Classically there are three ways to acquire this incomplete knowledge:  1) We can know God by what He is not — He is not limited, He does not change, He is not material, He is not mortal, He is not evil, etc. 2) We can know God by His effects in the world — this kind of knowledge is provided by the classical arguments for God’s existence such as Aquinas’ Five Ways, the Rationalist Proof, the Neoplatonist Proof, the Aristotelian Proof, the Proof from Moral Law, etc. All of these proofs entail the systematic study of the effects in nature that point to God. [See “ten proofs of God’s existence” for a brief explanation of each proof.] 3) We can know God by analogy — that He is good by an analogy to good things in the world, that He is powerful by an analogy to powerful things in the world, that He is beautiful by an analogy to beautiful things in the world, etc. My comparison between the scientific approach to understanding singularities and the scientific approach to understanding God is not to argue that God is a singularity. It is to argue that science routinely uses tools that allow us to know supernatural things (i.e., things not defined in nature, such as singularities) even though we are incapable of direct and complete knowledge of them. This scientific method includes, as we have seen, 1) definition by what a cause is not, 2) definition by studying natural effects of supernatural causes, and 3) definition by analogy. It is exactly the same method we use in natural theology to understand God. Natural science is the systematic study of natural effects according to all causes, natural and supernatural. Neither in theory nor in practice does natural science exclude supernatural causation — science that excludes supernatural causes is not science at all, but ideology. And the method by which natural science studies supernatural causation (e.g. singularities, mathematical laws of physics, etc.) is identical to the method by which theologians study God in the discipline of natural theology. To sum up, natural science is not methodologically naturalist — it routinely points to causes outside of nature. Science can and does point to God’s existence, and given the massive evidence for intelligent agency in our universe, it can quite reasonably be said that God’s existence is the most thoroughly proven theory in natural science. The debate between neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty to date:
Next: Dillahunty asks the 2nd oldest question: If God exists, why evil? You may also wish to read: Atheist spokesman Matt Dillahunty refuses to debate me again Although he has said that he finds debates “incredibly valuable,” he is — despite much urging — making an exception in this case. Why? For millennia, theists have thought meticulously about God’s existence. New Atheists merely deny any need to make a case. That’s partly why I dumped atheism. (Michael Egnor) MICHAEL EGNORSENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR NATURAL & ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Michael R. Egnor, MD, is a Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook, has served as the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery, and award-winning brain surgeon. He was named one of New York’s best doctors by the New York Magazine in 2005. He received his medical education at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his residency at Jackson Memorial Hospital. His research on hydrocephalus has been published in journals including Journal of Neurosurgery, Pediatrics, and Cerebrospinal Fluid Research. He is on the Scientific Advisory Board of the Hydrocephalus Association in the United States and has lectured extensively throughout the United States and Europe. Follow MichaelProfile とても興味深く読みました：
「（みんなが叩いているから）叩いて良い専門家」
これゼロ除算の批判を 批判されているように 見えますね。 ゼロ除算は、数学界の 歴史的な汚点なのに 何か 隠そうとしているように見える： Walter Gomide - Is nature written in transmathematics?
Debate: Does God Exist? | Matt Dillahunty vs Michael Egnor Henry S. Warren · 2012 · Computers Show that for unsigned division by an even number, the shrxi instruction ... Good code to divide takes a Knuthian hero, But even God can't divide by zero!
神でさえ ゼロでは割れない と有名な言葉が有りますが、それはできないものを 大げさに表現する 人間の習性からきていますが、 実は ゼロ除算の意味を考えれば 当たり前でした。 しかし、新世界が現れて来ました： Black holes are where God divided by zero. ~~ Stephen Wright #quote
Black holes are where God divided by zero. Albert Einstein
Hva er historiens beste oppfinnelse?Fysikeren, arkeologen og innovasjonsforskeren svarer på ukens spørsmål.
とても興味深く読みました：
Announcement 478: Who did derive first the division by zero 1/0 and the division by zero calculus $\tan(\pi/2)=0, \log 0=0$ as the outputs of a computer?
再生核研究所声明639(2021.9.28): 数学の価値、研究の方向、数学の様子 最近 次のような 問題があるような声明 を纏めた： 再生核研究所声明637(2021.9.22)： 何故数学界は駄目か ー 数学界の進化のために そこで 当然 問題は無いか と気になって 繰り返し反芻して来た。 一面であるが大事なことが述べられていると考える。 すると自然にその先の本質について触れたくなった。 私は存念の率直な表現に興味と関心を懐いている。 次も参照： 再生核研究所声明 584 (2020.9.14): 数学者の反省 － 自戒を込めて 再生核研究所声明617(2021.4.23)： ゼロ除算の理解を求める ― マスコミ関係者にお願い の続編とも考えられる。 ところで、この夏は かぼちゃが 大きく成長し、生垣、柚子の木、竹などにも生えあがり、 そこで、数学の研究の在りようです。 当然、 問題は世知辛い状況に置かれているように 永続的なポストに着かれた方が、 抹消と思われるような研究に取り組み、 言わば無駄のような努力をされているようなことがないかと気にな 意味のない数学に、無駄な努力をして 疲れたり、時間を失い、 数学界は無駄な研究努力を避けて 時間とエネルギーの余裕を持ち、数学を楽しむような世相の醸成が 大事ではないでしょうか。 このような発想、考えは一面の発想で、 逆の考えもあり、いろいろな対応が考えられ 考え方の多様性は 研究の基礎ですから、 参考程度に考えて下さい。 いろいろな視点から、いろいろな意見が出され、 数学とは何か、良い数学とは何か、何のための数学か と絶えず問い、意見交流して行くことは 大事ではないでしょうか。 数学界が展望もなく盲目的に進んでいるように見えます。 もちろん、それは 生命の本質の一面ですから、それは それでも良いのですが、省察も大事ではないでしょうか。 以 上
再生核研究所声明638(2021.9.27)： 奥村 博 氏 ファンクラブの創設と会員募集 奥村 博氏の 和算幾何学の発展には目覚ましいものがあり、それは 2200年を越える ユークリッド幾何学に革命 を起こしている： 再生核研究所声明636(2021.9.20)： 日本の偉大な数学者 奥村 博 氏 ー ユークリッド幾何学の王 再生核研究所声明588(2020.11.30)： 奥村 博 氏の 和算数学へ大きな貢献について ー 声明569の続編 － 再生核研究所声明569(2020.7.21)： 奥村 博 氏の 和算への大きな貢献と 美しい幾何学の世界 ー ユークリッド幾何学 と 和算幾何学の新展開 そこで、 奥村 氏の美しい数学を通して、相互の交流を図り、 幾何学の楽しみを共感、共鳴して さらに 発展させるために、 奥村 博 氏 ファンクラブ を下記の要綱で創設したいと考えます。 積極的な参加を広く呼びかけます： １． 奥村氏の幾何学を通して、幾何学を楽しむ会員が 共感、共鳴し、相互交流を図り、 ２． 交流は主に電子メールなどを用いて行い、 ３． 会員には個人番号を付けて、会員の規模、動向を明らかにして、 ４． 再生核研究所は 上記声明中の キーワード： 日本の偉大な数学者、 ユークリッド幾何学の王 の述語の 国際的な定着化を目指し、実のある王冠を 差し上げられるような努力 を行う。 5. 会費は無料で、自由な交流を図り、楽しむ数学の普及を目指す。 6. 会員入会希望者は、会員入会希望の簡単な理由を付けて 下記メールにご希望をお寄せ下さい。 簡単な審査の上、会員番号を付与し、関係情報をお送りします。 江戸時代 千葉県のある和算家 お弟子さん3000人を抱えて居たという。 その世相を回想して、楽しむ数学の文化の輪を広げて行きたい。 奥村氏の代表的な結果、あるいは様子としては、英文であるが、 viXra:2106.0108 submitted on 2021-06-19 20:06:05, Division by Zero Calculus in Figures - Our New Space Since Euclid - Geometry and division by zero calculus. International Journal of Division by Zero Calculus, 1(1), pp.1-36. No. 1: 代表者 齋藤三郎 saburou.saitoh@gmail.com, No. 2: 事務代表 齋藤尚徳 kbdmm360@yahoo.co.jp |
No comments:
Post a Comment