Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 7:36 am
If you insists God can exists as real, then your FSR must be of near equivalence to the scientific FSR which is based on physicalism.
As such it follow your God must be physical re physicalism.
I do not believe that the origin of all things physical, is itself physical.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 7:36 am
In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical.[2] Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view.
I do not believe that numbers or sets would be physical. However, these abstractions do exist. For example:
{ 1, 3 } U { 2, 7 } = { 1, 2, 3, 7 }
The above is a true logic sentence, for reasons of mere string manipulation. The sentence combines two abstractions into a new one. You term that kind of things "illusory", because they have no connection with the physical universe, but I think that "abstract" notions are not necessarily "illusory".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 7:36 am
If your god is not physical, then it is illusory.
Since numbers and sets are not physical, according to your view, they are illusory. I do not believe that numbers are illusory. I believe that they are Platonic abstractions.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2022 7:36 am
Algebra a branch of mathematics is not based on such 'pure reason' but grounded on mathematics which is ultimately grounded on the empirical. There is no decimal system or numbers if humans has initially look at the fingers.
The formalist ontology of mathematics utterly denies this view.
Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote:
In the philosophy of mathematics, formalism is the view that holds that statements of mathematics and logic can be considered to be statements about the consequences of the manipulation of strings (alphanumeric sequences of symbols, usually as equations) using established manipulation rules. A central idea of formalism "is that mathematics is not a body of propositions representing an abstract sector of reality, but is much more akin to a game, bringing with it no more commitment to an ontology of objects or properties than ludo or chess."[1] According to formalism, the truths expressed in logic and mathematics are not about numbers, sets, or triangles or any other coextensive subject matter — in fact, they aren't "about" anything at all.
Mathematics is not "ultimately grounded on the empirical". Mathematics is ultimately grounded in string manipulation. Therefore, mathematics is not about the physical universe or anything empirical. In fact, mathematics is not "about" anything at all.
Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote:
Are you stating your are using pure mathematics to prove the existence of your God?
I am merely pointing out that all the arguments that you use, and that are generally used by scientism against religion, can also be used against mathematics. However, scientism believers do not dare to attack mathematics. Everything you criticize in religion, is equally well critical about any other axiomatic subject. Therefore, your views are not merely anti-theist. They are anti-axiomatic. You simply reject the legitimacy of Aristotelian foundationalism, without however considering that through mathematics, science depends on foundationalism.
Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote:
However there are many who rely on science to prove the existence of their God which is fallacious.
I am sure that these people did not provide a reproducible experimental test report. Hence, their approach is simply not scientific. If you are not experimentally testing anything, you are simply not doing science to begin with. They are also not doing religion, because they are not reasoning from scripture. Again, they are doing something else altogether.
Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote:
"axiomatically reasoning from scripture" which are man-made?
Our standard, default arithmetic theory is Peano Arithmetic (PA). Question: is PA man-made? Was PA invented by Giuseppe Peano? Or rather discovered? Does Peano arithmetic consist in "axiomatically reasoning from rules which are man-made"?
What I find disingenuous is that all arguments against religion can also be used against mathematics. However, atheists do not dare to attack mathematics, because they know that they would look ridiculous if they did that.
Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote:
This is possible given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology given that theism is so irrational.
What would there be irrational about axiomatically reasoning from a set of given rules? It is the same system of formalist string manipulation as in mathematics. In this context, "irrational" would mean "inconsistent". If it is possible to derive the truth of a logic sentence from a theory but also the truth of its negation, then it would be an inconsistent theory.
What is truly irrational, is the failure to understand that axiomatic theories rest on syntactic entailment. It is just the mechanical application of rules. If you do not like the basic construction rules of a particular theory, then just use another theory.
Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote:
Therein the verses, all contracted Muslims has a duty to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats to the religion.
So? If you do not like a particular rule in a theory, then do not use that theory. Use another theory instead.
Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote:
True, not all 1.5 billion Muslims are evil-prone but even if 10% of them are evil prone we have 150 millions
of them around the world waiting to feast on those evil commands to kill non-believers. The reality of this is SO evident.
I am personally respectful towards the main religions. You will certainly never hear me say horrible things about Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Therefore, I am not at risk of reprisals. Furthermore, I am not going to lift a finger to protect people from reprisals when they make obnoxious or even blasphemous remarks about someone else's religion. In the end, all respect is ultimately based on the fear for reprisals.
Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote:
It is also a great sin for fallible human[s] to innovate and improvise anything with the Constitution of Islam.
I do not think that anybody has ever asked you to accept Islam as your moral theory. If you do not like football, then feel free to try tennis instead, or yet something else. However, if you go to the football field to harass people who like football, and sh.it-talk their sports, then you may indeed get negative reactions.
Wikipedia on "Mathematical formalism" wrote:
With the above, Morally, Islam is the worst of all religions and the most evil in contrast to Christianity's overriding pacifist maxim 'love all, even enemies' 'give the other cheek, etc.
You probably first need to learn to see through the hypocrisy about violence. If you insist on thoroughly insulting a policeman, no Christian will say anything if this policeman draws a stick and hits the hell out of you. At that point, where is the fake "pacifism"? Furthermore, you should have seen all these so-called pacifists donning a uniform and go to war against the Germans in WWII. Why didn't they "love" them instead? Huh? Suddenly, the "pacifism" was gone! Pacifism is mere b.ull.sh.it and you perfectly well know it.
If people beat the hell out of you because you make obnoxious or blasphemous remarks about other people's religion, then do not count on me to lift a finger. On the contrary, I am just going to be on the floor laughing. You see, I do not have that problem, because I do not make that kind of ugly remarks about religion. If I do not believe in one particular religion, then I just pick another one. Seriously, if you do not like football, then try tennis, for example. Going to the football field and annoying people who like football, is simply bad behavior.