This non sequitur premise invalidates the conclusion.
2 Likes
We have to take into consideration Eugene Wigner’s, Mario Livio’s, Galileo Galilei’s quotes. Wigner was genuinely surprised by how math worked, still works, with the sciences. This was simply a continuation of Galileo’s discovery about the quantitative laws of nature. Mario Livio echoes the same sentiment. These are scientists and mathematicians who are more than adequately informed about both science and mathematics.
So, in other words, God-of-the-unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics-gap. 
It’s not a god-of-the-gaps type of argument.
Clarifying the matter:
- There is a mind behind mathematics
- The universe is mathematical
- There is a mind behind the universe
I guess these are tongue in cheek, right? I’m going to respond as if they are real as an exercise.
Disagree.
Firstly it’s a non sequitur. Secondly, the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” is a big topic in itself but suffice it to say not everyone agrees that it is such a surprise. IMO all you need is for the universe to be self-consistent and mathematics will be extremely useful.
It isn’t? How do we know this?
How do we know this?
How do we know this?
That post in no way answers my questions.
If you’re just going to use premises that other people don’t agree with, then save some time and go with:
P1: God exists
The linked post answers all your perceptive questions. If it’s unsatisfactory, I’ll answer them here.
Do you agree that mathematics is abstraction?
Do you agree that abstraction is mind-apt?
Yes, but the universe is not mathematics itself, so your conclusion does not follow.
This suggests that a “mind” is also “mathematical”; yet if nothing is “behind” a mathematical mind, then likewise nothing is behind a “mathematical universe”.
I guess I’m saying a mind had to, well, put the math in our universe. Since math is abstraction and abstractions are mind-apt, we are led to inevitably conclude a mind behind our universe, no?
I don’t agree with nothing being behind our mathematical mind. God is (re multiple issues with physicalism). I mean how can nothing make a mind?
Why can’t mathematics (i.e. all mathematical structures) be an eternal manifold within which “universes” and “minds” are embedded?
Consider Max Tegmark’s (Spinoza-like) MUH:
Some kind of mathematical object, like a manifold from which our universe arises further strengthens the theistic position as it shows how great of an intellect designed the universe. You’re countering my argument from design by showing me an even more well-designed object than the one I presented as proof. Suffice it to say that you can’t use anything that’s mathematical to disprove the argument from math. After all, (mind, math) is a highly consonant dyad.
Ok, if you say so.
1 Like
Not me, reason.
Yes they are unsatisfactory; premises that are not universally agreed need arguments of their own.
Yes
What is “mind-apt”?
These are silly questions.
They were genuine questions asked in good faith.
Argument from objective morality
- If God doesn’t exist then there is no objective morality
- There is objective morality
- God exists
Non sequitur.
1 Like
What then of so many religions that base their morality on an omnibenevolent being?