"Matter itself is not energy. Matter combined with motion is energy."

When matter and anti matter collide they are transformed into pure energy.

"They divided 1 year into 12 months, 1 months into 30 or 31 days, and 1 day into 24 hours so on. Math doesn't describe anything. Humans do using numbers and time."

It is only possible to do this if reality is intrinsically mathematical.

Matter is energy. When energy 'condenses' into a particular pattern it forms an object; a hydrogen atom, a chair, a table. These patterns are images. Matter is not an ultimate substance, it is an image of energy. Physical time is also a pattern that emerges with matter. Physical spacetime is just another physical object/pattern except it has an extra dimension. Just as one can have a mathematical description of a chair or any physical object you can also have a mathematical description of spacetime. That description is general relativity. This describes the shape of spacetime. It describes how objects move in space. So time is a mathematical description of HOW change happens. Change happens according to a certain pattern and that pattern is time.
Ultimately time is a mathematical system. All mathematical systems are time because they describe how mathematical objects behave. How does the graph of a cubic equation change? It changes according to the algebra of the cubic equation. Algebra is mathematical time.

All events in the whole universe happens in time i.e. in order. But number operations don't happen in time order. They happen in the conceptual world, which is devoid of time.
Hence 5+7 =12, 7+5=12, the order of the events don't matter coming to the answers or results.
Even in the formal logic a ^ b = b ^ a — Corvus

The definition of time as change is not satisfactory. Time is the way change happens. That is, it is the logic of change. Relativity describes physical time. Change happens according to a certain mathematical pattern. This pattern is time. Mathematics is also a pattern and a time order. It is mathematical time or abstract time. The kind of time we refer to depends on the objects that inhabit that time order - physical objects, energy, mathematical objects.

Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. And just as statements about electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which they are concerned and these objects’ perfectly objective properties, so are statements about numbers and sets. Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented.

Saying mathematics exists independently of our minds and saying numbers exist independently are two different things. Mathematical truth, as it really is, may be something we have never imagined.

@Michael "3. If there exist any abstract mathematical objects, then human beings could not attain knowledge of them. Therefore,"

Why would consciousness be limited to physical spacetime? Mysticism asserts that consciousness transcends the physical.

Prima facie, it may sound counterintuitive to state that ‘there are infinitely many prime numbers’ is false. But if numbers do not exist, that's the proper truth-value for that statement (assuming a standard semantics). In response to this concern, Field 1989 introduces a fictional operator, in terms of which verbal agreement can be reached with the platonist. In the case at hand, one would state: ‘According to arithmetic, there are infinitely many prime numbers’, which is clearly true. Given the use of a fictional operator, the resulting view is often called mathematical fictionalism.

Can't one just say there are potentially infinitely many prime numbers? Also one can say that-
1/p1 + 1/p2 + 1/p3 +...diverges to infinity where these p are the primes.

But what does it mean to say there are infinitely many? What does 'are' mean? Does it mean they exist or potentially exist?

Math is a product of the human mind, and a very useful for modeling reality for human purposes. — Tzeentch

Well maybe God thought of numbers first so they exist in God's mind?

Here's a thing-

On the x-axis mark the line 0 to 1. You have one unit made of infinitely many points. These points are dimensionless; they have no width. But if you assert you are at 1 unit on the x-axis how did you get there? By lining up an infinity of dimensionless points? If this is the case you assert 0 + 0 + 0...for infinity add up to extension or width. So it would seem that an infinity of zero widths add up to a unit of width. Go figure.

Infinity is just another concept to say, that it has no ending. — Corvus

Infinity is all numbers together. The whole set, be it Aleph Null or higher.
Aleph Null is the natural numbers in an infinite set. Aleph One may be the set of real numbers, but see The Continuum Hypothesis.

Numbers exist as sets. They are generated by iteration and partition-
Start with /
Iterate //
Reiterate ///
Continue ///////////////////////////...
Partition each step in the process-
{/}, {//}, {///},...
These sets are 1, 2, 3,...
So does {//} depend on {/}? Seemingly. Does {/} cause {//}? I don't think so.
The cause of {//} is iteration on {/} and subsequent partition into a set.

In Cantor's system counting is not 1,2,3,...it is about a one to one correspondence-
1 -> a
2 -> b
3 -> c etc.
If an infinity can be matched in this way it is Aleph Null. If not, it is bigger.

Draw a circle on the X, Y axis with radius pi. All points on the circumference except 4 of them are irrational numbers. No others are rational, even though there is and infinity of both rational and irrational. This is because the irrationals are denser.

"3. Reality Requires Observation:
The universe exists only when observed. Without observation, there’s only potentiality—an idea resonating with quantum mechanics and idealism."

This is a carry over from quantum physics. Schrodinger's cat is not meant to be taken seriously, it is meant to illustrate some difficulties scientists encountered in their experiments. Observation and detection should not be conflated, they are two separate things. Observation is not relevant except for practical purposes. Detection is when a quantum event leaves a trace effect on an experimental apparatus. (eg a spot on a photographic plate). Detection is what matters. There is no such thing as a dead/alive cat.

Mathematics is the highest discourse because it is always true.

I once had a conversation online and this guy said that Nietzsche said the (physical) universe does not contain any ethical principle. But he also argued that the ethical person is 'rationally' defined in modern thinking. So I asked him how can the ethical person arise from a universe that has no ethical potential? This is a contradiction as far as Nietzsche is concerned. The only resolution seems to be that ethics arises from outside the physical universe.

Moreover, the third factor of physics is Law : organizing & governing principles that are most often expressed in terms of abstract Mathematical relationships : Logic. Laws are also defined metaphorically as-if they are the intention of a powerful rule-maker. Yet in practice they are simply regularities that allow a society or a world to operate smoothly & efficiently, and in conformance to the Will of the ruling authority. — gnomon

The regularities of the laws of nature are, as you seem to imply, often seen as laws like tax laws that are imposed by an external agent but in reality the law and nature are the same thing. The scientific laws of nature are not imposed on nature, they are nature. But the question remains; even if there are no laws external to the things that look like they are obeying laws, why does nature produce such finely balanced sublime structures? Why is nature so sophisticated? So the question concerning a God-like law maker is rephrased as a question concerning a God-like nature maker. Why does nature produce the sublime?

If we observe a billion examples of evolution on other planets and discover that life never gets to the multicellular stage on any of them, that would be evidence that we were either really lucky, or something intervened. Such a finding would definitely give a boost to the hypothesis that evolution here wasn't completely natural. — RogueAI

It is interesting that as soon as the ancient earth was ready to sustain primitive life, life got started right away.

I believe in evolution but the Theory Of Evolution is woefully incomplete. I don't believe mutations can create a person, the works of Shakespeare, a Mozart symphony...

If you consider it in terms of photons time travel is not possible.
Suppose on Jan 1, 2000, there is a light source at A. Photons travel to B.
Now a time traveler leaves on Jan 1, 2010 and appears on Jan 1, 2000, at C, the mid point between A and B.
The time traveler blocks the light and it does not reach B.
So, does the light reach B or not?

The original singularity of our universe would be considered uncaused and self caused at the same time, according to how science approaches it. — Gregory

Why would the singularity be uncaused? Eternity precedes time.

The fact that different religions have some overlap doesn't explain why people emphatically categorize themselves as belonging to different religious groups, and why these groups are geographically isolated. — Brendan Golledge

The essential teaching of religion is The Way. I am the way. It is the Tao or Right Living as the Buddhists would say. The external forms of religion vary for lost of reasons but they are secondary and have many causes.

I was just asserting that this thing we experience was interpreted in a religious context in the past, whereas it is interpreted in a psychological context today. — Brendan Golledge

But what is the psyche? Ask a psychologist and see how funny the answer is. Spirit is the traditional word. Modern psychology has drained all spiritual reality of its substance and replaced it with abstraction. It is largely a tautology that has relabeled everything spiritual and convinced many that "it's just psychological" - an expression that tells us nothing. Semantics. "English is what Chinese would speak if Chinese was English" :confused:

"If you doubt that truth for humans is socially constructed, then answer me this (I would genuinely like an answer if you have one): If truth for people is not socially constructed, then why are religious and political beliefs correlated to geography?"

Different societies have different languages to express spiritual matters but the differences are often secondary and not a measure of 'truth'. For example Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity and Judaism have much in common.

"How did people believe that they experienced God? I have read that the word “unconscious” was used for the first time in Germany in the 18th century. If people didn’t even have a word for the thing, it’s likely that they didn’t have a concept of it either. But if there is no unconscious to make your thoughts and feelings pop into your head, where do these things come from? Ancient people believed that they came from polytheistic gods (Ares = anger, Aphrodite = lust …) and demons and angels. They believed in their gods because they really did experience them. We just do not today believe in their interpretations of their experiences."

You seem to be saying that 'the unconscious' explains things. But that is a tautology. What is the unconscious? To answer that you have to know what the mind is. It seems to me that the unconscious is 'knowledge beyond language'. That is, knowledge that enters our minds through awareness but is not yet translated into conscious language.

"It seems logical that there is a limit to what God can add to himself personally, since he is infinity, and anything added to infinity is still infinity. So, God does not add to himself directly, but creates an infinity (or at least a very large number) of finite things."

Not necessarily. You can have an infinity of odd numbers 1, 3, 5, 7,...

And to that you can add something different; even numbers 2, 4, 6,...

1. consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones.

It is moot whether these natural explanations are such. Each case would have to be discussed individually.
Often 'supernatural explanations' are very secondary to essential religious teaching.

2. inconsistency of world religions

Religion is a language that is meant to express spiritual truths.
As such it is subject to all kinds of distortions and mistranslations (not just literal).
But essential religious teaching is concerned with The Way or The Tao. There is a right way of being
and a wrong way.

3. weakness of religious arguments, explanations, and apologetics

Debatable.

4. increasing diminishment of god

Unclear what this means. Human knowledge does not diminish God.

5. fact that religion runs in families

That can be true of atheism. Also, consider a spirit that desires to be born into a religious family (birds of the feather...)...

6. physical causes of everything we think of as the soul

Physical systems are associate with mind. Correlation is not necessarily causation.

7. complete failure of any sort of supernatural phenomenon to stand up to rigorous testing

Many would disagree. Besides, why would God submit to this?

8. slipperiness of religious and spiritual beliefs

Vague.

9. failure of religion to improve or clarify over time

True to an extent but that tells you more about human failure than anything else.
Even religion can become neglected, distorted.

10. complete lack of solid evidence for god's existence

Debatable. In fact that is the debate.

And I'm saying your statement is nonsense because science is not used to address "the big questions" so it can't be even "no improvement" on them. That 's like saying: "Well finally that bachelor has stopped beating wife — 180 Proof

Well that's just semantics. In common parlance 'science' has a broader meaning and the word is used loosely.

Here's a headline: "Security Council meeting called to discuss Moscow's recent devastating attacks on the key port of Odesa immediately following its refusal to ..."

Now, we are not going to split hairs over what 'Moscow' means in this context.

I guess you do not understand this my point... — 180 Proof

I do. I was responding to this-

I find "supernatural magic" and "G did it" to be non-explanations — jorndoe

I'm simply saying that science is no improvement on philosophy/religion when it comes to the big questions. I'm not criticizing science or saying it should be anything other than what it is.

Well, how has science answered the big questions such as the ones I pointed out? Science is not philosophy so there's no point in pretending it is. It is not an improvement on philosophy. Besides, philosophy/religion is far more sophisticated than 'God did it'.

you make a category mistake, EnPassant, when you criticise science for not doing philosophy and/or employ philosophy to undertake scientific tasks. — 180 Proof

I'm not criticizing science. I'm simply saying it is not an improvement on 'God did it'.

We are talking about the big questions. Philosophical questions. What is existence? What is eternity? Is it conscious? Why is the universe mathematical? Why are molecules assembling themselves into living creatures. Science does not explain these things. It gives secondary explanations concerning the mechanics of what is happening and these explanations are normally based on observation. So scientists describe what they see happening. Science is, for the most part, descriptive.

We are talking about the big questions in this thread. Science does not answer them. When science does answer lesser questions it is normally an explanation based on observations and descriptions of some other unexplained thing. Ultimately science just says 'This is the way stuff is happening'. All well and good but it does not explain what stuff is. It just describes what it is doing.

I think it is a mistake to absolutize these statements. They are just rules of thumb and there are always exceptions: the iron behind the velvet. Sometimes even war is justified (eg The Battle of Britain).

I find "supernatural magic" and "G did it" to be non-explanations (previously ... Nov 9, 2022 ... Jun 4, 2022). They could (literally) be raised to explain anything, and therefore explain nothing. — jorndoe

To be precise, science explains nothing either. Science describes the physical world: Hydrogen + Oxygen = water. But what is hydrogen? Well, a proton and an electron. What is an electron? No explanation. Nobody knows what an electron is. Science tells us what electrons do but does not explain what they are. All of science is in this situation so nothing is explained.

Religion: God did it. Fair enough.
Science: It is happening. Fair enough.

But what is an electron?

Like Jurassic Park the novelty of digital art grabs you but it cannot hold for long. It becomes tedious. These days computer art makes me feel queasy. I enjoyed Jurassic Park but I could not sit through yet another digi movie.

Perhaps mathematics and the logic on which it’s based rest on presuppositions about the world rather than the world itself. — Joshs

Mathematical truth is not a supposition. It is logical independently of what we think.

It is the other war around; the universe is embedded in mathematics. pi is a geometric proportion but it can, with infinite precision, be expressed as infinite series -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz_formula_for_%CF%80

Numbers are eternal objects and the universe is designed around them.

Numbers exist by purely abstract means. Namely iteration and partition (Set Theory)

Start with /
iterate //
again ///
etc //////////////////////////////////////////...

Partition each step: {/} {//} {///}...

= 1, 2, 3,...

Now set them in proportions as in Leibniz's formula-

1/1, 1/3, 1/5, 1/7,...

And, very simply, we go from set theory to pi to space. Now add time and you've got the basis for a universe. Numbers are the 'atoms' of spacetime.

I'm talking about individual revelation from God or His teachers. There is no other way.

As life develops, that unity dissolves. So, if you assume a divine unity, such a progression always results in a falling away from unity, as intentional beings by definition have their own purposes. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Why must it fall away from unity/good? It is possible to evolve towards the good. Not all intention is against the good.

Human beings cannot discern spiritual truth by their own means. It must be given to them. Philosophy has failed in its task to answer the big questions. We must be guided by revelation and awareness.

Lucifer and the angels were spiritual, not physical beings. They descended into 'veils of matter' (Origen). The fall led to physical existence.

Press two north poles of two magnets together. You will feel (close your eyes) something solid between the magnets. Solidity is only energy fields pushing/pulling each other.

The fall of creation happened before the physical universe was created. Life in the fallen universe is imperfect because perfection is spiritual, not physical. Perfection is life made free of evil.

Except extraterrestrials visiting earth wouldn't be a miracle. There's no violation of a law of nature. Why should we prima facie think alien visitation is a low probability event? — RogueAI

Hynek suggested they get here via the Astral Plane - what some call extra dimensions or, more traditionally, the spiritual world. Many of the reported sightings suggest they are spirits but many also suggest they are biological beings. Perhaps they are both.

The main requirement would be that the humanoid form is optimal.