Spend much time on the water and you’ll quickly realize the value of buoys. Whether they signal an underwater obstruction or the edge of a narrow channel, they mark the way for mariners, helping them find their way safely home. But to serve this valuable function, the buoys must remain fixed in place – literally “grounded” to the earth beneath the waves. Otherwise, the forces of wind and current would move them and eventually deposit them, useless, onto a distant shore. Buoys are not the only things that must remain “fixed” in order to have value. A bit of reflection reveals that certain unchanging concepts must also be somehow grounded. Unpacking this idea provides considerable support for a belief in God and displays the lack of explanatory power of the atheist’s worldview. For in the end, without a supreme transcendent eternal Being – God – to ground these permanent concepts, they simply could not exist.
We acquire information about the world from our senses. The evidence of what we see, hear, touch, smell and taste provides the clues which, assembled by our minds, tell us about the world around us. The vast majority of what we encounter is changing; it is in a constant state of flux. Matter does not remain fixed but moves from one form to another. The components of this computer I am presently using were once things that were quite different and one day will either be reconfigured to some other use or begin to decay in a junkyard somewhere. Even more “permanent” things like mountains and rivers did not always possess their current appearance and also are in the process of transformation.
Just as the forms of matter are not fixed, neither are our thoughts. “Minds” are constantly in the process of changing. My knowledge base is much greater today than it was ten years ago, and some things I thought to be true then I no longer believe to be true. Many of my thoughts relate to current and shifting feelings, such as hunger or thirst or the need for sleep. My opinions as to events or places or people are also constantly changing. For most of what we encounter, those things and ideas that are changing, we know the thing itself, or at least something about the thing. When I know that the sky is blue, I am knowing the sky and the color it emits. When I know that the Roman Empire fell, I know something about an historical event. When I know I am hungry, I know something about my physical condition.
But there is a separate category of known things that are different – things that we know to be necessarily permanent. I know, for instance, that the sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle equals the square of the hypotenuse. I know that a particular number – pi – will always result if I divide the area of any circle by the square of the radius. I know that if A equals B and B equals C, then A must also equal C. Moving to a different arena, I know that courage in the face of adversity is a virtue and that betraying a friend is bad. I know that it is wrong to derive pleasure from torturing children.
I am also aware that these concepts, which I conclude are not subject to change, are also shared by all rational people. NASA demonstrates this when it sends spacecraft hurtling to the distant reaches of our solar system and beyond; the probes bear messages in the form of mathematical equations, because rational people recognize that anywhere this craft may go, and for however long into the future that it may continue to exist, those concepts will not change. These “necessary truths” will outlive everything that is physical.
But what is it that I am recognizing when I realize that a particular concept is not subject to change? When I say that the sum of the angles of a triangle is always 180 degrees, where is it that such “laws” abide? Where were they before man first developed the intelligence to discover them? The value of pi may be a constant, but it is a constant that is unknown to non-sentient beings.
Our experience tells us that ideas are not like rocks or rivers; they are not physical things. They do not have a physical location, but exist only where minds exist. But minds do not fall into the category of unchangeable things; minds, like matter, are changeable and always changing. If both mind and matter are constantly in flux – constantly subject to change - how can it even be that some concepts are in fact not subject to change?
The atheist has no answer to this. Saying that these are simply features of the universe is no answer, because the universe has been changing from the moment it came into existence. Moreover, a "mindless" universe cannot be the source of ideas which must come from minds. With no permanent mind to serve as the grounding for unchanging eternal truths – atheists have no satisfactory explanation for the way things really are. It’s like saying that mail carriers are the source of mail, without ever bothering to consider who authored the letters that they carry. Theists, by contrast, have an explanation that is sound: if there are ideas that are eternal and not subject to change, then there must be an eternal and unchanging mind that grounds those ideas.
These changeless truths, then, are our "buoys," fixed not in the good earth but in the firmament, marking a safe path for us to in finding our way home - the way back to the mind that is God.
Posts
33 comments:
Are you saying that the area of a circle divided by the square of the radius would not equal pi unless there was an eternal and unchanging mind to recognise it?
And what does an eternal and unchanging mind even mean? If it is eternal and unchanging, how could it have any thoughts at all?
mcp:
No, I'm actually saying that it would not equal pi without an eternal and unchanging mind to make it so. We created beings "recognize" mathematical formulas but we do not create or sustain them. The point of my post was that of the two worldviews, only theism can make sense of "timeless truths." Since our minds are changing and since nature is constantly changing, an adequate explanation must be presented for things found in nature that are not changing. That explanation is
God.
I'll address your second question more fully in a later post. The short answer is that time does not apply to God in the way it applies to us. When we "change," it means that new circumstances have affected us in some way, causing us to improve or decline in some fashion, or to shift our approach. There is nothing new for God. He sees all things and all time in his eternal present. He knows all things. Therefore he has no need to change. No new thoughts occur to him because all possible thoughts are present within his infinite mind.
Thanks for weighing in.
@Al:
But the area of a circle divided by the square of the radius equals pi simply because of what a circle and a radius are. It couldn't be otherwise, at least under conventional definitions of 'circle' and 'radius'. So I cannot change the value of pi, and neither can you, and neither can a hypothetical all-powerful God. I can't see why you think a constant pi says anything about the existence or non-existence of a mind (even if that mind was 'eternal and unchanging').
The fact that the universe is changing over time does not imply that all abstract truths change over time under a theist or atheist view.
(Incidentally, I take it that you don't think God ever changes his mind about anything?!)
mcp:
You are taking as a given the very thing under consideration: the existence of “ideas” – here, mathematical concepts. As it relates to a circle, we are talking about comparing the length of the perimeter (a linear measurement) with the area circumscribed (a two dimensional measurement) and by finding out how many times one goes into the other (i.e. “dividing”), we see a fixed, non-repeating number. Why should I conclude that this relationship will always be fixed? Why would dividing make sense in the first place? E=mc2 we are told. Why would squaring the speed of light and then multiplying it by another number tell us anything of value? Something we expect to remain constant regardless of our opinions about it.
Yes, these rules are “fixed,” but my point is that what we are talking about is a language we would call higher math – a “language” because it communicates valuable thoughts. But we did not invent this language. And since languages come from minds, we have to ask ourselves why this language is there for us to find.
Atheism says it just happened that way. That might explain why a rock exists, but not why calculus works and will continue to work into the future. Theism offers a better explanation – an eternal mind which grounds these laws/rules of nature that we can discover through the use of our minds. That’s why we see them and animals don’t. Atheism sees the mail in the mailbox and explains it with the mailman – the immediately preceding physical cause. I’m asking who wrote the letter in the first place.
I'd be happy to discuss this with you further. You can email me directly at al@pleaseconvinceme.com
I think you may be confusing an idea or concept held in a mind with an intrinsic absolute ('necessarily permanent' in your words). An intrinsic absolute is not dependent on physical existence and is also not dependent on being held in a mind. An absolute simply is, and it doesn't matter whether or not a mind exists to assess it. An all-powerful God would be subject to such an absolute - he couldn't change it even if he wanted to.
To put it another way, if a universe existed just like ours, but had no minds, the ratio of the area of a circle to the square of the radius would still be constant.
So my question to you is: what makes you think that an intrinsic absolute only exists if it is held in a mind?
Because an “absolute” is a product of a mind. Consider what you are asserting: how could you know that the ratio of a circle has always been the same and always will be? That it is in any sense "absolute?"
To extrapolate backwards and forwards in time to say that an absolute exists is a product of thought, and therefore, a product of mind, and mind alone. There is no confusion in this analysis. Things that approximate circles exist all around us, but mathematical calculations are something quite different. You are actually proving my point: if another universe did exist, the only way you could be sure that the ratio of a circle remains the same if for you to form conclusions from what you know.
But on what basis do you trust that “the rules” would apply?
There are no perfect circles in nature. Ratios and calculations of pi exist only in a mind. But if such concepts pre-exist our minds, and if our minds are contingent and subject to change, there must exist adequate grounding for permanent concepts. The only adequate grounding is an eternal, unchanging God.
@Al:
I disagree that 'absolutes' are necessarily products of the mind.
A physical rock is different to the concept of a rock held in a mind. The physical rock continues to exist even if there were no minds to conceive of it. What's more, a mind can conceive of rocks that don't exist.
Similarly, an intrinsic absolute is different to the concept of the absolute held in a mind. Again, the intrinsic absolute holds even if there are no minds to conceive of it. And a mind can conceive of 'absolutes' that do not hold.
I maintain that certain mathematical and logical absolutes are in this intrinsic absolute category, including your example of the ratio between the area of a circle and the square of its radius.
mcp:
Yes, you are right that pi is intrinsic to the dimensions of a circle. This "absolute" - the ratio of area to diameter - is tied to the nature of the thing.
Now let's take another "absolute" -that mathematical equations can consistently and accurately describe natural things. I hold this conception in my mind and believe it has always been true and always will be. Circles, squares, triangles - all are subject to mathematical understanding.
If the ratio of a circle is intrinsic to a circle, to what is my belief in mathematical truths intrinsic? They are not physical but are conceptual, yet I know they are not subject to change. But minds change. So, the only adequate grounding to such changeless concepts is an eternal unchanging mind.
There is more than the mere physical at play here.
Al said: "you are right that pi is intrinsic to the dimensions of a circle. This "absolute" - the ratio of area to diameter - is tied to the nature of the thing."
Great! That's what I was trying to express with my second comment above - (mcp said): "the area of a circle divided by the square of the radius equals pi simply because of what a circle and a radius are. It couldn't be otherwise, at least under conventional definitions of 'circle' and 'radius'". This applies in all possible universes, whether or not any minds exist.
But now you are considering what you regard as another absolute: "mathematical equations can consistently and accurately describe natural things". Mmmm... I'm not convinced that this is an absolute in quite the same way as the pi example is, although it may be - but even if it is you have some work to do before you should assume so. The concept does appear to be generally true in our universe, and what's more, a surprising amount of the physical world can be described by surprisingly simple mathematics.
However, I guess I can conceive of an alternative universe where that doesn't apply. For example, consider a universe where an all-powerful God physically intervenes, breaking the natural laws with 'miracles'. (You may well believe that our known universe is already like this). In such a case, the mathematical description of nature would no longer hold, and therefore would not be an intrinsic absolute.
If the mathematical description was truly intrinsic, an all-powerful God would be subject to it, and therefore would not be able to carry out those miracles. Just as God is unable to vary the ratio between a circle's area and the square of its radius. Don't get me wrong, I'm sympathetic to the idea that the universe is based on mathematical truths, and that the laws of physics, for example, couldn't be any other way than what they are, and would hold whether or not any minds exist. But I don't think that you are proposing that!
I wonder if another way of looking at what we've been calling absolutes might simply be emergent properties of either physical or conceptual objects. So a constant ratio of area to the square of the radius is an emergent property of all conceptual circles. And a color (normally blueish) is an emergent property of a physical sky. And angles summing to 180 degrees is an emergent property of all conceptual triangles. And a mathematical description is an emergent property of all physical universes. And a mind is an emergent property of all physical brains of sufficient complexity and coherence.
The emergent properties hold by the very nature of the entity under consideration, it is not possible for them to be any other way, there is no need for a mind to hold them as concepts, and it is not possible for an all-powerful God to change them. Nothing more mysterious than that. What do you think?
mcp:
"Mmmm... I'm not convinced that this is an absolute in quite the same way as the pi example is, although it may be - but even if it is you have some work to do before you should assume so."
Actually, I don't think so. You are the one who insists that mathematical concepts apply here. You have no doubt that they apply consistently. Whether you can imagine different universes is not the point. You are still left with mental conceptions that are permanent and which demand an adequate explanation.
"I wonder if another way of looking at what we've been calling absolutes might simply be emergent properties of either physical or conceptual objects."
I think this is mistaken. The examples you give are not "emergent" but fixed and timeless. All of it comes from the mind of God. You countered that perhaps they are in the nature of the thing, as if a circle has necessary existence. I don't believe this is true, but countered that this does not solve your problem, because the conceptions regarding the reliability and usability of math are also absolutes which, again, need grounding.
You are using "emergent" as essentially a red herring to prevent you from acknowledging the conclusion that at least one conceptual absolute exists.
Al said: "You are using "emergent" as essentially a red herring""
Fine, I'll drop the emergent... I thought the terminology might have helped by bringing a slightly different perspective on things.
Al said: "You are still left with mental conceptions that are permanent and which demand an adequate explanation."
Example concept: A circle
'Permanent': the ratio of a conceptual circle's area to the square of its radius is a constant
Explanation: The 'permanent' follows from the definition of the circle concept. Yes a mind can conceive the 'permanent', but the 'permanent' would hold whether or not a mind conceived it
Question: Do you agree that the explanation is adequate? (I thought you already had agreed when you said: "This "absolute" - the ratio of area to diameter - is tied to the nature of the thing, but your subsequent post leads me to doubt this)
If you agree, then we can say that there are at least some of what you describe as 'mental conceptions that are permanent' that do not require an eternal and unchanging mind. And we could then look at other more complex examples, such as the mathematical description of the universe.
If you disagree, then I'm not sure that we can get much further with this discussion, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Mcp:
I don’t believe conceptions like “circle” or “triangle” exist except in the mind. I think approximations of these things occur in nature, but the idea itself is a product of mind. Even if no human mind were present to contemplate it, because it is an idea, some mind must. That mind is God’s.
I didn’t belabor the point earlier so that I could make the further point that even if I were to concede that pi is simply a function of an existent thing – i.e. a circle – you would still need to explain the nature and origin of mathematical formulas, which can exist only in a mind. A further example would be calculus. Where do equations such as force= mass x acceleration exist? The ability to manipulate numbers in such a way as to accurately describe change is not an element of the thing being measured; a rock falling on me may have weight, but the things calculus can tell you about its energy state or movement are not features of the rock.
My task, I believe, is simpler than yours. I need only identify one mental conception that requires an eternal mind (even though I believe that all that exists requires the eternal mind of God to sustain it). You , by contrast, cannot posit alternative explanations for just one thing, such as a circle; you need to show that no such mental conceptions exist.
@Al:
A circle is a concept that only exists in the mind. We both agree!
Al said: "Even if no human mind were present to contemplate it, because it is an idea, some mind must". We disagree:)
A concept circle wouldn't exist if there were no minds. What's the problem with that? What makes you think a mind is required?
Al said: "I need only identify one mental conception that requires an eternal mind". We both agree!
But I say that you haven't yet identified one.
mcp:
Ideas are products of minds and only minds
A circle is an idea
Therefore, a circle is the product of a mind.
@Al:
A circle is an idea. A circle is the product of a mind. Agreed!!!!
You are not addressing the question though: If there were no minds, the concept/idea of a circle would not exist. So if all minds that held the circle concept disappeared, the circle idea would no longer 'exist'. And if another mind at a later date had the idea of a circle again, then the circle idea would once again 'exist'. What is the problem with that? Why do you think that a mind must exist simply to hold on to the idea of a circle?
mcp:
Because in addition to understanding that a mind is the source of ideas such as circles or calculus, I also know that these concepts are not subject to change. I "see" that they are permanent, which it appears we agree on.
Our mortal minds are not permanent, however, so they cannot explain this apparent permanence - "timelessness." Since our minds are subject to change, and since our minds are not permanent, we still need an adequate source to explain how ideas can be permanent. Nature cannot explain it, because physical things are not permanent either. Therefore, I must conclude that an eternal mind is the only source adequate to explain the existence of timeless truths. The mind is God.
In other words,I know that the circle never did go out of existence, even if all human minds were extinguished and then brought back to life somehow. I think you know that as well. This is what needs explaining - how it is that ideas which are products of mind can still remain true even if no human mind is holding them.
@Al:
In your original post, you appeared to be saying that some properties of some concepts never change, and therefore those properties must be held in an eternal and unchanging mind. An example you gave was the property of the ratio of area to the square of the radius for a circle concept.
Since then, you have expanded your claim to say that an eternal and unchanging mind must exist to hold even concepts such as circles.
As I noted above:
"if all minds that held the circle concept disappeared, the circle idea would no longer 'exist'"
And I don't believe you have satisfactorily answered my earlier question to you:
"What is the problem with that?"
mcp:
If all minds cease to exist, then circles would cease to exist. I agree, if by all minds you include God's. If he ceased to exist, then nothing would exist.
Conceptually, I know that God must necessarily exist, because I recognize that God is that being a greater than which cannot be conceived. A necessarily existent and eternal being fits that conception, and since I cannot conceive of thing which is not real, there must be such a being.
Consequently, there is no way for circles to go out of existence, even if all human minds disappeared.
That of course is the point of the argument from "timeless truths." I intuitively know that circles must exist and even if all human minds disappeared and then reappeared a million years later, circles and calculus and other conceptions would not have changed. The only adequate grounding for this is an eternal mind, since minds are the only kinds of things which hold conceptions.
So, to answer your question: the problem with the assertion is that circles simply don't go out of existence.
Al said: "If [God] ceased to exist, then nothing would exist.
But now you are just asserting something that you were trying to demonstrate in the first place.
Al said: I cannot conceive of thing which is not real
What??!! Most of the human population can certainly conceive of things that are not real
Al said: "circles simply don't go out of existence
I maintain that circles are not real, they are ideas or concepts only. If there was no mind to hold the idea of a circle, it is no longer meaningful to talk of a circle's 'existence'. And that is not a problem - plenty of ideas/concepts have either never been thought of, or no longer 'exist' in a mind, and so those ideas/concepts do not currently 'exist' at all.
I don't think we're going to get any further here, which is a shame, since you brought up more interesting concepts than circles in your original post ("courage in the face of adversity" for example).
mcp:
I think we may be at an impasse. Let me try a question: calculus exists in the minds of millions of people today. Move back in time and you will reach a point before it was first discovered, at which point no human mind had ever conceived it. Does it really make sense to you that these mathematical laws -these equations which accurately describe things like rates of change - sprang into existence at that point? That's roughly like saying that the pearl in the oyster wasn't there until the oyster was opened. Isn't the only rational conclusion that these equations existed from the beginning of the universe? If so, what mind did they spring from?
As for my other comment regarding conceiving of things which are real, I was referring to Anselm's ontological argument, which I address in this blog post. I find it quite compelling as a proof of the existence of God.
http://pleaseconvinceme.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-fool-believes.html
Al said: "I think we may be at an impasse.
I agree.
Calculus is more of a methodology than "mathematical laws... equations which accurately describe things like rates of change. Some equations accurately describe aspects of the physical universe, most don't.
I do find it fascinating that mathematics can be used to describe the universe so well. In answer to your question, I don't think that the equations themselves "sprang into existence" at the point when the idea of them was first held in a human mind, although in some sense (e.g. depending on what you mean by existence) this is partially true. Note, for example, that velocity is a measure of the rate of change of distance over time. But this is just how velocity is defined. Things in the physical universe can have a velocity even if there is no mind that holds the concept of calculus, or knows about the equations that describe velocity.
And I don't understand how you get "Isn't the only rational conclusion that these equations existed from the beginning of the universe? If so, what mind did they spring from?. That doesn't follow at all. Does the eternal mind hold all equations, or just those that correspond to the physical universe? What about false equations (e.g. 1=2)? What about non-existent entities such as 30-legged elephants?
I have always found Anselm's argument one of the least convincing 'proofs' of God, and am surprised when I come across anyone who takes it seriously (other than philosophy students!). But that is another subject for another time.
mcp:
I think you’re failing to draw the distinction between the way an object behaves in nature and the “timeless truths” that define it. Yes, velocity would continue to be a description of a thing in movement, but “knowing” more about that thing through the use of mathematical equations is something different. The first (velocity) may be present regardless of whether there is a mind to observe it, but the second (equations) can only exist if there is first a mind to behold them. In other words, velocity is a product of the movement but an equation about movement is the product of a mind.
I’m not sure what part doesn’t follow for you. If I show that equations didn’t spring into existence when the first human mind discovered them, and we agree that equations are conceptions which are the products of minds and only minds, then there must be an adequate cause for these conceptions – even if there is just one, by the way. The only adequate cause is an eternal and unchanging mind. This mind encompasses even false notions, which it knows to be false. This mind is God
As for the ontological argument, I won’t take offense at your comment, so please don’t take offense at my response – I too found it lacking in convincing proof until what Anselm was getting at finally resulted in a “got it” moment. I realize that this claim by me is not an argument, and that it’s easy for someone to say “you just don’t get it.” While I don’t think I can explain it any better than what others have done over the years, I do think it’s worth spending more time on.
@Al:
Some things are physical - they reside in the physical universe, and do not rely on a mind for their existence (or at least you have not demonstrated that they need a mind!)
Some things are conceptual - they may be held in one or more minds, and rely on at least one existent mind to hold them. (Let's for now ignore indications that thoughts and therefore concepts are really just physical configurations within a physical brain). A concept can no longer be considered to exist once a mind no longer holds it. Assuming no alien intelligence, no concepts existed prior to life on earth (or at least you have not demonstrated that they did!)
Some things are properties of either physical things or concepts, and I think you may be confusing properties with 'timeless truths'. Properties hold or are true by the very nature of the physical/conceptual item under consideration. Your examples of pi and the velocity of a physical object are good ones. A mind can conceive of a property (just as it can conceive of something physical), but the conception is not required in order for the property to exist.
A circle is a concept, and a circle only came into existence once a mind first conceived it. There presumably was a time after that first conception that once again no circles existed. But all circles have properties of area (A), radius (R), and pi (ratio of area to square of radius). The properties necessarily conform to the equation A = pi*R*R where pi is a constant. While a mind may conceive this equation, this conception is not necessary for it to be true, it simply is true by definition of a circle's properties or can be derived directly from them.
Similarly, physical things have properties of location (D) in time (t), and velocity (V). The properties necessarily conform to the equation V = dD/dt (in fact as far as I know V is defined in that manner). Again, while a mind may conceive this equation, this conception is not necessary for it to be true, it simply is true by definition of the properties of a physical object in the universe.
mcp:
You are correct that physical things have properties that are conceptual. The velocity of a rock first presupposes that there is a rock and that it is moving. But you are incorrect in ending your analysis there because much more needs explaining.
The first is the ability to manipulate concepts using fixed rules that exist both in math and in logic. When we do this, we move beyond the mere description of a physical thing’s properties to a purely conceptual realm. A may or may not be C in any given scenario, but knowing that if A = B and B = C that A always equals C is a product of mind, not a property of a physical thing. So too is the knowledge that such rules can reliably be applied, so that we can extrapolate from the known to the unknown.
The second is more fundamental. Your conclusion is based on the use of reason and logic – premised on the assumption that sense impressions can be reliably analyzed that way – which itself is a product of mind. While you may rely on it, it too needs explaining. Did logic and reason first begin when the first human began to think? Before that, the rules of logic that we intuitively use simply did not exist? They were invented, not discovered? Why didn’t different cultures invent different ones then?
This does not appear rational to me. Clearly, man has discovered, not invented, these rules. We discover things that already exist, not things that we invent from other, simpler things. But if we did discover them, and if there were no previous human minds to explain their existence, then there must in fact have been a mind that always existed to provide the type of grounding that is adequate to a timeless conception. That “mind” is another word for God.
@Al:
You have somewhat changed the subject here - you are now talking about underlying rules of logic and mathematics. I'm happy to discuss these, but could you please clarify: if I was to convince you that rules of logic and mathematics somehow existed independent of an eternal mind, you would accept that what you earlier called 'timeless truths' are actually just properties of physical or conceptual entities that do not require an eternal mind but do require the rules of logic and mathematics? (I'm not here suggesting that I CAN convince you, or indeed that there is no eternal mind)
mcp:
I don’t believe I changed the subject. I attempted to provide some examples of what I am referring to as “timeless truths.” You pointed out that some of them – pi for example – are simply a function of the physical thing itself. I agree that this is the case, but I believe you are missing the point. Cats, dogs and birds all encounter circles but none of them have the slightest notion that there is a ratio, or what a ratio means. Seeing the relationship between the circumference and the radius, and then manipulating it with mathematical formula, are conceptual in nature. They cannot be explained away by noting that they correspond to a physical thing. What needs explaining is the awareness of the concept, and the ability to use it to describe other things, or to predict outcomes.
There are numerous other examples of permanent conceptions of which our minds are aware.
The rules of logic and mathematics can be applied to all physical things. But they themselves are not physical. There is something more at play, something that needs explanation.
It is for this reason that I do not believe such ideas could exist apart or independent from an eternal – source – mind. I know I am not inventing these ideas and that they predate the appearance of the first human life. There must be a first “sender” mind for later minds to be able to receive the information that is contained in these concepts.
@Al:
If I was to summarize your original post, it would be along the lines of:
(1) Certain ‘timeless truths’ exist, for example ‘pi is a constant’
(2) If any ‘timeless truths’ exist, there must be an eternal, unchanging mind to hold them
(3) Therefore, there must be an eternal, unchanging mind
I have pointed out that you haven’t adequately demonstrated that your examples in (1) are valid ‘timeless truths’ or that (2) is necessarily true. Therefore you cannot reasonably conclude (3) on the basis of your argument.
Our discussion has focussed on some simple examples of what you earlier called timeless truths: the constant ratio of a circle’s area to the square of its radius, and the velocity of an object in space. I think we are now agreed that:
(a) A circle is not a timeless truth – it is just a concept that exists or not dependent on whether a mind exists to hold it
(b) An object in space is not a timeless truth – it is just a physical object that exists independent of whether a mind exists to hold it
(c) Pi and velocity are not timeless truths – they are just properties of a circle concept and a physical object respectively
(d) Proving that pi is a constant and methodologies to calculate the velocity of an object in space MAY be timeless truths – at the very least both of these are dependent on the use of rules of logic and mathematics, which themselves MAY be timeless truths
You say “I do not believe such ideas could exist apart or independent from an eternal – source – mind”. But what makes you think that these ideas/rules are not simply based on properties of the physical universe? For example, a collection of physical objects certainly has an attribute of ‘count’; objects can be ‘added’ or ‘removed’ from the collection, in which case the collection’s ‘count’ attribute will be updated – corresponding directly to integer addition and subtraction, all without the benefit of a mind to observe it. Perhaps all such apparent rules are just a property of the universe – a mind CAN conceive them, but a mind is not necessary in order for them to hold.
mcp:
I am indebted to you for helping me to refine the argument. While I continue to believe that pi and velocity are examples of timeless truths despite the fact that they are also attributes of a physical thing, I realize that they are not good examples because they are, also, attributes of a physical thing. This muddles the argument. Until I can come up with a better of way of explaining this distinction, I am better off relying instead on the rules of logic, mathematics and reason, which you acknowledge MAY be timeless truths.
So, what stops you from concluding that they are in fact timeless truths?
To answer your question, I think these concepts are not simply based on properties of the physical universe because they move beyond those properties. The color red, for example, is a property of an item reflecting light, but understanding how to manipulate these findings to determine, for instance, the age of the universe or the speed of light is a function of mind. You appear to be approaching these issues with the existence of human minds as a given, whereas I am attempting to determine how mathematical rules, reason and logic can preexist the emergence of human minds. It strikes me as self-evident that the rules of logic, reason and mathematics existed prior to the first cave man’s awareness of them. They have not changed since that time and they never will. This is what needs to be explained.
Your example of a “count” is valid as far as it goes. But predicting how many I will end up at the end of period z if I assume that I will acquire x additional ones every y period is something I can do, if I know how many y periods there are in period z. This I can know with certainty before the items are actually present for me to count. Consequently, this type of knowledge goes beyond the mere observation of the physical thing.
Al said: “what stops you from concluding that they are in fact timeless truths?”
I was trying to list what we could agree on, so used the words “MAY be timeless truths”!
I personally think that mathematical and logic fundamentals are simply properties of the physical universe, so in that sense I don’t have a problem with you calling them timeless. Although, note that if there was no universe, it would be meaningless to even consider them. However, as I've said before, that doesn’t mean you can simply ASSUME they therefore require an eternal mind to hold them (and I think I have raised enough red flags to support that statement). Again, remember that it’s your argument, so you need to support your statements rather than me demonstrating the contrary.
Al said: “You appear to be approaching these issues with the existence of human minds as a given”
Absolutely not! To give you a flavour of my thinking, I have already shown that simple properties of object collections combined with obvious manipulations of the objects themselves has a direct correlation to integer arithmetic. If there were no minds in the universe, physical object collections would still have a ‘count’ property that changed over time. Once a mind exists, it has the potential to conceive and use the corresponding mathematics and logic fundamentals that already exist in the physical universe. A mind can also conceive of configurations that do not correspond with the physical universe. So I can, using your example, “know how many y periods there are in period z. This I can know with certainty before the items are actually present for me to count”
However, if there was no conceiving mind, the universe would still go about its business the same way as it always has; physical objects would move and change in a manner consistent with certain equations, even though there would be no mind to conceive of those equations, or predict future object states, or even conceive of the objects themselves for that matter.
Now my comments do not disprove the existence of the mind of God, and I was in no way attempting to imply this. All they do, I believe, is show that your argument/proof of that eternal mind is insufficient.
mcp:
Your assertion that the universe would go on as it always has even if there were no mind to conceive it is, it seems to me, begging the question. My broader point is that Christianity has better explanatory power over all, as it can make sense of why conceptions exist - there is in fact a "mind" without which there were be nothing - absolutely nothing. Atheism can assert that no mind is needed, but this doesn't fit well with the nature of information and minds as we see them. It seems rather odd to me that the precision of the universe is random, as opposed to designed.
We probably can’t get much further here without simply repeating ourselves or going way off-topic…
Al said: “My broader point is that Christianity has better explanatory power over all, as it can make sense of why conceptions exist - there is in fact a "mind" without which there were be nothing - absolutely nothing”
I understand what you are saying. But your “better explanatory power” is not required, and just introduces new questions, for example: “why does God exist?” and “what plausible mechanism explains how concepts in God’s mind get into human brains?”
Post a Comment