Math Proves God!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- A question a lot of people ask is does science and math prove or disprove religion? So we try to get to the bottom of it all so we brought in experts Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. Michael Shermer. Chime in and let us know what you think!
SUBSCRIBE: bit.ly/bryan-c...
MERCH: bit.ly/bryancal...
Gotta love when skeptics admit they don't know everything because it's so rare
I can't remember a skeptic saying that to me or to anyone else, but definitely have fun with your strawman!
@@wape1oh they will lmao
At its heart, skepticism is the admittance of ignorance. Religions are simply refusals to admit that ignorance and then create a mythos to fill in wherever they see fit. God needs to be all powerful because ignorance has no boundaries.
WHAT!?!?!
The Bible says, "no one knows the mind of God", but that doesn't stop theists from telling you all about Gods wishes, traits, goals & what he wants you to do with your life.
LMAO
I love seeing Bryan so pumped for God!!! God is working through the world mightily for all those seeking God/Truth. God Bless you brother Bryan!!
It’s just lonely people finding justification to the world. The sooner you realize God isn’t real, the better.
@@3dheadcreeps87 Quite the contrary. The sooner you realize that God is Truth, and that He’s VERY real, the better. Your statement makes no sense to someone who knows God is real and we as human beings have eternal Souls. I had my little denying God stage for less than a year after high school.
So why is there something rather than nothing? You have to be crazy to think that this entire universe came from absolute nothingness. God is very real and Bryan is on his path to discovering the True and living God. The sooner you discover him the better. You really don’t want to wait until you die expecting nothing after death and to be surprised and realize that you always knew in life that God was True and real. We all know, even the deepest of the deepest athiests and deniers know deep down in their soul that God exists. Because we all have souls created by God that know he exist. Dive into Socrates and Plato and discover your Soul.
@@3dheadcreeps87 I spent 27 years trying to prove God wasn't real. Took me 2 days of trying to prove it right to answer every question I had, and to realize just how little I knew. If you actually take any other explanation to the end, you have to believe way more unlikely things than god
@@Clifford777 I would have thought you were crazy not too long ago; but when it hit me, I had an overwhelming feeling that I knew the whole time, and extreme shame for denying him for so long
The Bible says, "no one knows the mind of God", but that doesn't stop theists from telling you all about Gods wishes, traits, goals & what he wants you to do with your life.
LMAO
This is the last place I expected to find thought provoking discussion. Awesome. If you keep on this path you can turn your pod cast in to what Rogan used to be.
What are you talking about. Brian is a huge fucking nerd. 😂
Amen Rogan has hit the wall barrier that divides the wisdom of God from the wisdom of the world. Joe will continue staying beneath that barrier cycling the same sort of information until he begins bringing in theologians, Christian philosophers, Christian scientists etc. And not only Christian I hope he brings on great Jewish, Muslim thinkers etc as well to paint the full picture. But all will recognize the Truth claims the Christians have are unlike all other since Christ is the Son of God and the Truth.
I am hoping Dr. William Lane Craig gets on his show soon. It will be a paradigm shift for the Joe Rogan podcast and bring it back to what it originally was. Fully alive and seeking for the Truth. I love to see it happening to Bryan. God is awesome! Joe is craving God, he knows he’s hit that wall also.
Except better, as Bryan actually knows a little, enough to ask better questions.
This will make it better. But not more popular
Love your name
Anyone notice Bryan is doing the same type of thumbnail and text as Jordan Peterson?
Straight up thought it was a Jordan Peterson video when I first saw it haha
I dig it.
@@Leaving_Orbit likewise, the podcast has definitely went up in quality and I’m all for it!
Don't yall know callen is just the funny JP
@@malachiholder351 haha pretty much, honestly a conversation between them would be absolutely amazing. Hopefully they get the chance to do a podcast together
As smart as we think we are we actually know nothing….. we think we do but most is just a guess
Who is running out of time
Some, is a guess.Not most A guess at least based on evidence. Not some bs easily debunked presupposition.
@@raginglunatik8979 the vast majority of people in the West believe in big bang theory. A singularity that somehow expanded despite not having anything rubbing against it INCLUDING space and time? That's a miracle. At least water was wet when Jesus supposedly turned it into wine. BBT claims nothing was turned in to everything. A much bigger leap of faith than God.
Saying that knowledge is impossible is totally consistent with atheist epistemology. If it’s not revealed to us that we were created with the capacity to have knowledge, then we shouldn’t assume we can. We could be a butterfly who’s dreaming that he or she is human, we couldn’t know.
@@dennisholst4322
[Quran Chapter 103]
1. By Time.
2. The human being is in loss.
3. Except those who believe, and do good works, and encourage truth, and recommend patience.
When you’re talking to someone who is much smarter than yourself, wisdom, dictates that you be silent in their presence, and let them talk. You look foolish because you keep talking over him.
Exactly.
I like that Bryan has not followed the mainstream idea of disproving science or the knowledge these amazing individuals have gained throughout their studies.
Meyer doesn't "study" in any honorable, decent sense. He is a full time, lying hack at a rightwing Christian fundamentalist pressure group- where he abuses genuine scholarship of actual scientists to peddle his religion.
no one gonna point out the thumbnail is a carbon copy of jordan peterson
“What do you mean by nothing.” I mean nothing. That one sentence proves the existence of God.
Love them both, but would have liked to hear more from Michael. He seemed to cut short whenever he started to speak.
Proud of Callen’s direction.. 🥲 No fear. 🔥
That guy needs a Ridge Wallet!
Brian taking a page out of Joe's book..good job 👍
Gods way of creating a perfect world:
(…)
To create the universe
Wait Billions of years
Create a man out of mud and a woman out of that man
Tell them not to do something that you know they’re gonna do
And then threaten them with death
And then, when they do it, not kill them, just make their life difficult
Then go through a comedy of errors of having people fail to love you or
listen to you or obey you over and over
Flood the world - start over again
Confuse their languages in order to try to start over again,
Encourage war
Gradually go from walking and talking with them to not interacting in any detectable way
And then magically impregnate a young girl so that you can take human form
As a sort of god man that’s fully god but fully man - which doesn’t actually make sense
So that you can sacrifice yourself to yourself as a blood magic loophole
For rules you’re in charge off so you can set aside your own anger because
that’s the thing that we’re being saved from - it’s God’s wrath its just that it’s declared to be justice
Then expect future generations to believe without sufficient evidence.
M. Dillahunty
I'd watch this pod. This is interesting.
Excellent retort from Dr. Shermer at ~2:40 (even though he & I are probably on opposite sides of this question)
CALLEN IS THE NEW ROGAN
ROGAN'S OUT, HE'S GONE SOFT
CALLEN IS KING
OMG it would be worth the price of admission if that BBBB Beast of a co host was in on this one. Can you imagine? Conceptual? Some would say the most conceptual B. David Berlinski ? Great mathematician never met him.
You should have Jonathan Pageau on
Bryan Callen telling you about the existence of God is the best proof of the opposite.
Ha! LOL! I like Bryan (and believe in God), but, yeah....
@@joshuabray37 I like Brienne too.
What Is the Difference Between God and Nature?
“It is best for us to agree and accept the words of the Kabbalists that ‘the nature’ (Heb. ‘HaTeva’ [‘הטבע’]) has the same numerical value as ‘God’ (Heb. ‘Elohim’ [‘אלהים’]-eighty-six. Then, I will be able to call the laws of God ‘nature’s commandments [Mitzvot],’ or vice-versa (God’s commandments [Mitzvot] by the name ‘nature’s laws’), for they are one and the same.” - Kabbalist Yehuda Ashlag (Baal HaSulam), “The Peace.”
There is nothing besides the system of nature, which Kabbalists equally refer to as “nature” or “God,” and we are integral parts of this system.
Therefore, when we say that there is one God, it means that there is nothing besides one force acting in this single system we are parts of.
The desire of the single force acting in reality is to bring us into connection with it-not via coercion, but through awareness in a positive manner.
As much as we understand, feel and attain this force as one that is good and benevolent, then we can adhere to it and reach its level of complete awareness.
Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem... nuff said xD
Hey!
Why is always the smallest mind that interrupts the more developed mind? Just let the other men talk without constantly interrupting dude.
Ego.
I would like it if it did. But it does not
Math is.
If you want to know “God’s” redline on something, just jump. 🤷♂️
Love the show, but I believe they are making a chagtory mistake.
When we ask about God
We also ask about the devil
There's no separation
There's both
And we need to hurry up and deal with the fact that the devil or whatever U want to call it is taking over fully and this is a massive problem, l can't be the only person in 9b to realise this now wth
The first verse of the KJV Bible has ten words.
√10 is 3.16
Jesus is Lord
Congratulations, you've won the "Dumbest sentence of the Century" award
Pp😊😊
Do math and numbers exsist regardless of our perception is a interesting conversation but God of the gaps for math isn't proof of anything.
It's more obviously theoretical science of the gaps to try and explain away what the observations are showing us.
@@rcmysm9123Logic has no gaps within it and thus cannot be falsified much like God, we utilize such predicate to even have an intelligible process in the first place. (The supposed gaps are the gaps of ignorance receding from atheism into theism not the other way around via divine hiddenness)
@@zacksmith4509
The process is intelligible because it initiates from a mind.
@@rcmysm9123 I agree! I've heard nature of the gaps, time of the gaps, and also "mutiverse of the gaps" is also my new favorite (adding more and more universes but "without God", which ironically they used an intelligent mind to suppose such universe(s) hahahaa
@@zacksmith4509
Exactly, and the more we discover the workings of the material world the more it confirms the improbability of a probabilistic universe.
Math.. How many SA charges you got? Gonna need Bapa's math skills on this. Brian your not smart.
"For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God." -Romans 1:20
I don’t care what your book says
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
@@Christopher-wm8vcyou will. Everyone takes a ride to the other side.
@@ogslowdragon
You clearly don’t understand that this verse is just the ignorant opinion of an uneducated guy who thought that the stars were signs in the solid firmament that could fall to earth.😂
@@ramigilneas9274so what’s your explanation for the beginning of life? Science created everything after being “granted” the “miracle“ of the Big Bang??
Who cares that the thumbnail is the same as JP’s. This entire episode was great
I noticed
The incredibly dumb idea that NOTHING created SOMETHING ultra complex! ...... it defies all common sense and reasoning.
I wouldn’t say “nothing” “created” anything. I’d just say that whatever state gave rise to our universe simply necessarily existed. See Graham Oppy if you want to learn more about what the other side believes rather than just strawmanning lol
@@K0wface I noticed you used the words ‘gave rise’ instead of ‘created’ since if something is created implies there is a a creator. ‘Simply existed’ do you mean eternal ?
@@untoldhistory2800 Yes. I avoided using the term 'created' because using that term presupposes an answer and so it'd be presupposing an answer. The term 'gave rise' also doesn't rule out a creator. As a result, the term I used best represented both side's views without favoring one or the other.
When I say 'simply existed', I don't really mean eternal. I mean that it just exists. It doesn't require an infinite past. If time began, time doesn't have an infinite past because saying "before time" doesn't make sense.
@@K0wface Then you would have to ask, "What gave rise to time (or the beginning of time)?" And whatever that is it must be timeless by definition.
@@conversative So, god must lack any and all properties that the universe possess? You know, all the properties that we know to exist and can be tested for? Convenient. But to say that something 'gave rise' to time is oxymoronic. 'Gave rise' implies a temporal causal process. Unless you want to mean hierarchically? But then you would have used different wording.
The initial state can be said to have the property of time and so having this property means that there is no time/instance/moment at which it's meaningful to say that the initial state did not exist. It's pretty simple.
Thanks for all of the great content Bryan!
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties.
Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property.
The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence.
2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property.
Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements.
In other words, emergence is a purely conceptual idea that is applied onto matter for taxonomy purposes. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon.
Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property.
The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain).
Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity.
For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness.
As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness.
My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong.
Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini
🫡
Ur a dope
Yeah, and what happens when you die? No soul anymore. An unresponsive corpse, capable of nothing. And what happened to your soul before you were born?
That's an awful lot of words you've typed that prove naff all.
Such nonsense
We are inside of the thing we're trying to study.
What's your point?
exactly. its like a 2-dimensional creature trying to prove the existence of a 3-dimensional object. impossible.
@@rand5 Good conception.
Knock knock. Who's there? Jesus Christ. What do you want? I want to save you! Save me from what? Save you from myself if you don't let me in!
No, it does not. LMAO
NEXT>>>>
Nobody invented science and nobody invented god. We just discovered its existence. All in my opinion. Do not take this a science fact. PHILosophically it makes sense. 8+3=11 11-3=8 3-8= -5 3-11= -8
Clearly the equations dont always line up. Even pythagoras got it from someone and possibly forgot to ask more questions, he was just satisifed with his initial- discovery. His name still flows today in schools and UNI
You tell me. Im no scientist. 😅 My buddy tony seems to agree with me. He hits and misses on the big questions but we do agree two odds always make an even in addition. Dont shoot the messenger 😅
I find it amazing that people still think there are invisible beings living in the sky manipulating our lives.
How narrowminded do you have to be to believe that out of thousands of religions, YOURs is the right one and everybody else is wrong?
wow.
The thing is though, anyone invested in this delusion I would not want to convince that God is not real because I don't think they could handle it, which is why they believe in the first place so there you go.
Humans dont invent or find much. We just REveal its existence in the world 🌎. Like a happy treasure hunt. Ha 7for7 😅😮
Michael gave me a chuckle. We do not create reality with our philosophy. We attempt to understand reality with our philosophy. Reality is reality. It does not change. The Truth does not change.
Our understanding of it does. To refute the first Dr. with the thought, "let's see what number 1 and number 2 have to say" is insincere to the premise. He then presents 100% pure theory as accepted fact in the circles who maintain "there is no God".
"For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
It is fun to listen to these guys.
He’s grasping at straws to maintain his dying religion.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
I was not expecting to see Brian so excited about the Lord Jehovah. I'm really happy for him I didn't know he was on his way.
And he played "Buzzard" on Reba.
if math proved god, you would be able to show it. instead we get a couple of clowns giving us a word salad
Read the physics of immortality.
😊
So what do you want? A proof? Or God showing himself?
The only word salad was coming from Shermer. Meyer presents a very convincing case. Too bad it flew over your head.
Amen.
A perfectly reasonable logical progression with significant implications is a "word salad" to you? Then you need to spend more time listening to intelligent coversations.
God I love your train of thinking Mr. Callen
Math doesn't prove God anymore than the language of English proves God. Both are man made languages. We are the ones who decided on what to call things, we are the ones who developed a system of measurements as well as the units of measurement we will use. Just like we use words to describe an apple, we can use math to describe the same apple. The apple doesn't need a mind to exist, a mind can observe that a particular object exists, decide to call it an apple, decide to classify it as a fruit, etc. Math works the same way. The physical universe doesn't require a mind to exist, but a mind decides what to call that existence and decides how to describe all of the natural processes in that existence.
"The apple doesn't require a mind to exist" yet, in order to think of an apple you had to exist, the universe had to give conditions for apple and you to exist to then observe it! no mind(s) no substance of any objective (and subjective experience of existence) thus rules out your non mind (and non logical point)
Lennox hasn't done mathematics in years. All he does these days is babble and lie about subjects he's never bothered his backside to actually study.
Meyer has never presented anything at an academic conference.
A flower can prove God exists.
Existence can prove God exists.
I honestly can’t tell if this is BS or actually a Christian argument for god
Maths proves god? No sorry. This talking point has been debunked many times over. I mean, why don't you publish this for peer-review in a recognised scientific forum?
What have you got to fear?
The moment Michael said he doesn't know what is talking about,, a sad moment of rejecting God, foolishness
Callen is too unfocused and interruptive ... the guest is making points systematically and he spastically cuts him off
Meyer is a pseudo-scientist that the whole scientific community rejects.
Bryan. Let your guests talk, when you speak over them you sound desperate. did you even understand yourself what they were trying to tell you when you opened you mouth all the time?
The only thing this would prove is DEISM, not THEISM.
Michael Shermer's scepticism is the more intelligible one in this discussion, in my opinion. The only intelligible argument that has been published recently is given by James M. Tour, in the sense that it is more than highly improbable that life -a living cell in his arguments, that even beg a series of contextual questions - could be synthesized by mere chance.
Seems perfectly intelligible to me to reason that the mental conception that they're referring to implies the existence of a higher mind than man's just as much as the astronomically improbable synthesis of a cell by chance.
@firecloud77 Not to mention, the OP here is clearly ignorant of Meyer's other work E.g. his book "Signature in the Cell" where he makes the exact "intelligible" argument he has time for.
👀 ... 😊 Thanks Brian!
One love.
I thought he might have been talking about Christopher Michael Langan and CTMU.
Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
I wonder who the mathematician is… if I had to guess it might be either Alain Connes or Roger Penrose..
Making sure daddy Crowder is happy.
Is the mathemetician unnamed by Meyer now known and what is the name of the book.
Watch rapist Callen , talk to a creepy mocking bird guy.
Sure doesn't.
It does point strongly in a theistic direction though
Fantastic logic of the conceprual minds
Subbed because of this vid
7 mins in - resign - or legate
Thx Brian
The host says god in the sky, he is only eager to prove his point that god is there yet I don’t feel he understands the difference between believing in a god a a creator of everything and believing in god that is situated in a certain time space, because the latter is a creation of god.
Encouragement is the thing that would be essential to growth on the subject 🤷♂️
I can not believe that otherwise smart people comes to so wild and fantasy conclusions.
I agree. They think "nothing" kind of..."exploded" into, well, literally everything. Not by an external force though: "nothing" exploded into everything, spontaneously, for no reason lol. It really is a wild fantasy.
I think the most important statement in this video
6:12 - "John polkinghorn the great Cambridge physicists used to say why does the reason within the mathematics that we develop on the basis of our deductive reasoning match and describe precisely the reason that is built into the universe the design of the universe? he says the best explanation for that is again theism. There it provides a principle of correspondence. That the same God who made the design the rationality the orderly patterns we see in nature made our minds in such a way to discern the mathematical structure that is inherent in those in those systems and that's why we can do science.
And actually that principle of Correspondence was one of the key things that inspired the Scientific Revolution- it was called the Principle of intelligibility and all the great theists who were the early founders of modern science Boyle, Kepler, Newton believed that nature was intelligible and could be understood by the human mind because the design in nature issued from the same intelligence namely God who made our minds in His nature so that we could understand nature."
Could god have created a universe in which mathematics does not describe reality?
Being a platonist about mathematics doesn't prove the existence of God. These theories have given way to other ideas like intuitionism and formalism that are also legitimate and don't require the commitment to a God-like mind.
No it doesn't.
Just no. Mathematics is axiologically impoverished.
My epiphany came when my son's graphing calculator graphed out some trigonometric functions, and it mapped out to a spiral sea shell. God is a mathematician and mathematics is the language of God.
Callen is exactly the type of dope who thinks math might prove the magic guy in the sky.
Poor argument. You assumed a “mind” and added immaterial to it on a whin. As far as we know there is no such thing ws a mind without matter
With two sides
thats false, minds not necessarily be material, brains are material, but the mind is believed to be seperate from the brain by many philosophers.
@@gsp3428 Without a material mind there is no thought.Without thought you have no philosophy. No amount of belief makes something true.
@@raginglunatik8979 You mean a material brain, the brain and mind are not synonymous.
Your brain doesn't do the decisioning for you. Otherwise you can't make truth claims because your choices are determined by the matter. But since there's an agent inside you that wills your decision to whether eat or skip a meal it proves the existence of the immaterial.
I get where they are going but math is just a conceptual measurement of reality those equations actually represent geometry (shapes/patterns). Im sure math was invented to build and trade later found other uses.
God is your higher self.
🤮
🤣
Bryan!! You're not Jordan Peterson you donk!
Nothing adds up. The only way they use math is when they start the equation with God as a pre existing variable. A lot of well spoken distraction from the same simple question. Neither has a legitimate argument imo.
Keep telling yourself that you numbskull
By definition God is pre existing, so it logically adds up as well.
@@rcmysm9123yep emmination of unbounded potential (much like the "fundamental particles" which have no mass, and aren't contained within space...) I wonder why they decay into all the other particles?
@@zacksmith4509
Because of God's wisdom and grace.
Brian nodding his head as if he understands anything that guy is talking about😂😂. Rogan needs to be there to call him out! What a dork
Callen is completely lost
Atheism is lost 🤷♂️
@@seraph6758 Atheism is simply the non belief in a god. Were not the ones who think snakes and burning bushes can talk.
Cut him some slack. He hosted a debate with a nut who places himself on the same level as Shermer. Kudos to Michael for having the patience and ability needed to bite his tongue so many times.
@@raginglunatik8979 We? Didn't know Atheists had such unity .. almost spiritual lol. 🙂
@@raginglunatik8979 I dont think snakes talking is any moral irrational than my grandfather a billion years ago was literally a fish, and somehow a group of fish walked out of the water for some strange reason when they cant breathe air, and billions of years later here we are communicating on the internet. If you believe in evolution thats what you have to believe, but of course thats not crazy, its science.