Oliver,
0. I am not sure what you mean by a perfect circle, probably a physical object whose shape is well modelled by a circle (as part of the Euclidean plane). I do not know if any - mathematical or physical or whatever - entity can exist "in a null environment within non-existence" (whatever that means) without any universe or god. If I understand you properly, you are hinting at the plausibility of assuming the existence of a Platonic world of mathematics. This, of course is a philosophical question but I gather whatever are the arguments for a belief in Plato's world of pure ideas, they are doubly valid in the case of mathematical entities. The mathematician Roger Penrose speaks of three worlds - mental, mathematical and physical - and their interaction (see e.g. 'The Large, the Small and the Human Mind, CUP 1997). I think many, if not most, working mathematicians will agree with this point of view, though surely not all. For a discussion of this see >The Nature of Mathematical Objects< in 'Triangle of Thoughts' (American Mathematical Society, 2001). However, this brings us too far away from the original theme of this thread.

1. Yes spirituality, in its various manifestations, comes first, if I understand you properly. Though theology is an indispensable part of (Christian) religion, you can understand and appreciate its symbols only after you have been exposed to some (Christian) religious experience - most often through education - of which spirituality/mysticism are the highest manifestations. The same as you would not understand and appreciate e.g. the meaning of the number 'three' unless you were previously exposed to the experience of three apples, three bunnies etc. during your childhood. (ctd)

Ah! By George! Here’s the dilemma. What is the nature of the original Christian ‘experience’? Undoubtedly, without a ‘body’ the basis for Christianity disappears – this is the point to which Sells strongly alludes but he cannot abide the mystical. A Resurrection is central to Christian theology (or should I say, “The Resurrection”). The creeds of Christianity, which have carried through into the 21st century, reinforce its mysticism – omnipresence, omnipotence, Eucharistic Transubstantiation (if you’re Catholic). Eastern Orthodoxy prefers the Greek ‘process’ of metousiosis. Nevertheless, 'great mystery' remains – with scientific empericism left well out of bounds in the touching of any such ‘mystery’. To arrive at the actual ‘body’ and ‘blood’ of J.C. (if one is not to compromise scripture) through a communial ritual, the ‘process’ is by necessity, mystical – and certainly non-emperical.

Similar rationale applies to any resurrection ‘event’ – scientific empiricism simply does not nor cannot enter its realm. For two millennia, mainstream orthodox Christianity, has relied on the Resurrection’s ‘physicality’– its accepted ‘truth’ has, over the centuries, given Christianity a certain uniqueness (which understandably, some are loathe to surrender). Undoubtedly, this belief will continue – with only the basis of scripture for ‘proof’.

A basis for ‘faith’ cannot harness emperical science in an endeavour for explanation or ‘proof’ or it is to create a ‘god of the gaps’ – the same pseudo-science that has brought us a retreating and rather narrow view of the ‘creationist’ entity. This literal and dismal god of the heavens, long grown in impotence, continues to terrorize and threaten with his blunt instrument.

But indeed! Christianity is in reality but another animal, far evolved from the original – but perhaps once again, seeking a political potency and ascendancy against and above its other Allah-rival. Showing itself yet again, to be quite unoriginal.

Oliver,(continued)
The same is true about much more sophisticated mathematical concepts and relations: they live in their own world and are indispensable for our understanding of the nature and working of the universe, but originally - e.g. when still Newton "reigned supreme in physics" - we arrived at them through direct, sensual, contact with parts of the physical world that we have access to. Also, I restricted myself to theocentric Christianity but am aware that my analogies would have to be modified to include also the oriental cosmocentric versions of religion.

2. I am sorry but a could not find any contributor here signed as 'Martin'. Could you, please quote explicitly the questions he asked?

relda,
I am not sure whether your comments were directed at me. I only entered this thread because Sells referred to mathematics, where I feel more at home than in e.g. theology. I do not think I would be given enough space here to react to all the points you make. Let me just say that one can find inspiration for a theist and/or Christian world view - as well as for an atheist and/or anti-Christian one - from both history/bible and science/mathematics. As mentioned before, the cognitive part of my faith is inspired by analogy to my conviction through praxis that there is a world of (pure) mathematics that, although "unreasonably effective" for science, it stands beyond the physical as well as the mental (individual as well as collective) worlds. Of course, other mathematicians are inspired in exactly the opposite direction. I think that there are many problems within Christian, or any religious, models of Ultimate Reality as there are many problems with mathematical models (e.g. of contemporary cosmology, "theories of everything") that one cannot understand, not to say try to solve, without being intimately acquainted (a passive knowledge is just a part of this) with the world - theological or mathematical - where the "building blocks" for these models are taken from.

George,

(1) CIRCLE:

You are correct, I was thinking of Plato. What I am alluding to is, the very abstact perfect form does/might not require a god or a universe.

In geometry, as I am sure you know, if you there are an infinite number of circles between the centre of that circle and its circumference. Likewise, what if we go "outside" the circle, and, we imagine wakes of concentric circles moving away from the circle, is the outermost circle bounded by the universe? Is the perfect form bounded by spacetime. Assume the concentric circles are not confined by c, as to create virtual spirals, when drawn. These circles just simply, "exist", cross-sectionally and instantly.

The point is conceptual things "may" exist, without god. Could god prevent the existence of a perfect form? If not, the perfect geometric has an independent existence and is created. Thus, god should spelt with a small "g", where it, god, to exist.

Moreover, if geoometric forms existed without god, why not the universe, if science can introduce infinities to explain away, causality?


(2) MARTIN'S QUESTIONS TO ANSWER (EDITOR:Please excuse double post, asked about it.)

GEORGE, OTHERS, YOU ARE WELCOME TO TRY SOME:

Martin seems must have left in an earlier thread. Sorry to confuse.

-(a) How would you infallibly recognise god, if It appeared in history?

-(b) If a supernatural power communicates, “I am God”. How do you know the entity IS God?

-(c) How do you MEASURE scripture as the GENUINE word of God? How are constructs validated?

-(d) Why is the allegedly REAL Christian God copied, as if, from known MYTHICAL theocrasia?

-(e) Why is God made Man, still part God?

George,

-- Math can throw-up surprises. Dirac c. 1929., did not believe his own discovery of the positron (a negative root derived from expanding E=mc2, Einstein 101, was so iconic).

-- The questions relisted are my questions to Martin... And Sells, if he chooses.

-- I wonder if Penrose's world of the Mind, requires a Mind? QM mirrors the Physical world. What, if any, perfect forms, exist without the Mind? With the physical world as we move from the macro to the ultra-micro, reality blurrs. A shift from the deterministic to the indeterminant. Lisewise, would not the Mind have more concrete posits than the realm of concepts. Concepts, perfect forms, unknown to the Mind, might exist, just as, not all probabilities are normalised from quantum space in this universe?

-- I have tried unsuccessfully to engage Sells. He seems disposed to instructive Rhetoric, whereas, I am more included towards mutualism and dialogue. Closed vs Open communication systems. A priori validation vs revisionism. It takes all kinds... , I guess.

Cheers.

Oliver,
(1) Well, circles are mathematical concepts, and as such are not part of the physical universe and space-time. So a "circle bounded by the universe (or space-time)" does not make sense to me. Mathematical concepts can only be applied to features of the physical world, and I think something similar is true about religious symbols. Otherwise, I think you are right that one can believe in a Platonic world of ideas (if this is what you mean by perfect form) without believing in the Christian (or any other) God. I could name many famous mathematicians who subscribe to the idea of a Platonic world of mathematics existing outside the physical world as well as outside our mental world, who are atheists or at least agnostics.

(2a,b,c) You want statements about God etc. to be falsifiable, in the popperian sense, which they are not, since they are not scientific statements falsifiable e.g. by experiments. If they were, belief in God would not be of more merit to the believer than "belief" in the existence of Alpha Centauri or the irrationality of the number pi. There are many things which you cannot falsify - e.g. the bodily resurrection of Jesus, or for that matter of any historical person whose DNA we do not have - hence they cannot clash with what we accept as laws of nature mediated through science. Such claims go against common experience or common sense but since at least relativity theory and quantum physics, common sense has become itself a dubious criterion of truth: For instance some 150 years ago, common sense would have told you that something can be either a wave or a particle, not both.

(d) Because even the rationally most sophisticated (religious) models of Ultimate Reality, do not take their inspiration out of the air but have to draw from pre- rational, mythical models and narratives. Like even the most scholarly number theorist did not get the concept of a natural number out of the air but had to learn it from counting oranges and apples in pre-school. (ctd)