George, Peracles, Boaz, Foxy, one under god,

- Philo?

I had the Theology & Science article on the screen of my computer but everything froze when I attempted to print. Will try again.

Also taking a peek at:

BIG SCIENCE (2003): by James Franklin
EXISTENCE AND FAITH (1960): Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann
INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL PHILOSOPHY (1920): by Bertrand Russell

I had not expected that the Domains/Realms of God, Formulae would take us down the path of The Thought of God [Spinoza]. That topic could be deserving of its own thread.

Where I have been been heading is, towards of The Realm of God(s) subsisting in the superset of The Realm of Ideas. Except the sub-set of The Realm of God's [s'] subsistence does not appoximate, nor is in reasonable agreement with [Kuhn], the existence of a universe known to us; whereas the subsets of the Realms of Formalae and Perfect Forms [Plato] subsistence, do, in fact, approximate and are in reasonable agreement with the existence of a universe:

Moreover, said universe does exhibit self-orderliness: e.g., Goldbach's [strong, unproven?] Theorem [as cited in Schrodinger] or similarly Levy's conjecture.

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/GoldbachConjecture/

On Earth, in our universe, we might be able to point to a sublime circle in lieu of a perfect circle; but, where is the sublime God in lieu of a Perfect god?

Let's see if I can catch up a little Oliver.

>>Can a perfect circle exist in our universe, if not, what about as an abstract [Plato]<<

I would propose a perfect "anything" can exist only as a Platonic ideal. There is simply too much background noise in our real universe to conceive of a situation where this level of mathematical perfection can exist anywhere except as a theoretical construct, defined mathematically. Given the inherently unfinished nature of pi, even this construct is somewhat fuzzy, and even the idea that it is possible to determine a perfect circle needs to be taken as a given, where pi = pi, if you like.

>>If not in our universe, would the abstract have a meta-reality in the Domain of Perfect Forms?<<

Only if there is a requirement for a circle to exist, or a requirement for a Domain of Perfect Forms to exist. Without this requirement, the universe - or any universe - would have no reason to be brought into being. In other words, the limitation of abstraction here is bounded by at least one level of reality: that reason exists.

If reason does not exist, or there is no requirement for reason to exist, then no answer to the question can be possible.

>>Would said Perfect Forms exist without God<<

Only if there is a reason for God to exist. If God exists, he/she/it would have no inherent meaning as an abstraction, since there is no requirement for an abstract God.

The universe - any universe - can exist without God. But God cannot exist (i.e. would have no meaning or relevance) in the absence of a universe.

Peracles,

Thoughtful answers. If neither god nor plutonic forms exist or subsist [Batman subsists], without a reason, then that leaves us with universe(s). Why a reason?

Is there a posit for the existence/subsistence of god or a posit for the existence/ subsistence of the Realm of Perfect Forms, noting the difference between actual existence as portrayed and subsistence as a notion like a character in a play like, Sydney Carton? In a sense the latter is a subsistence in literature.

My posit, until proven otherwise is,

1. The universe exists,

2. There is a reason for Perfect Forms & Perfect Formalae to exist,
or at least subsist in the Releam of Ideas, as a standard against
which we can [merely] build approximatons, herein accepting Kuhn's
obsercations of approximate agreement in science.

3. Religions are human inventions derived from neurological [Limbic
System] and sociological needs, which could be in their sun-set.
Politicians and the clergy have a stake in keeping the old
traditions alive.

4. If god does exist, said entity has not manifested itself or its
motives to us and, therefore is a tentative hypothesis
void of our valid rationalisations. Scriptures don't count. The
hypothesis is at best a weak conjecture.

Cheers,

O.

Philo?

Nice wrap-up, Oliver.

Thanks Peracles,

I still need to read George's recommended paper. I do have access. On theist side of the discourse, I would have liked to have heard from Philo. But perhaps, h isn't following this one.

Hope you played with the above link on-line, there is no need to down and risk your computer.

I will wait a day or two for tail-end comment and close.

Regards.

O.

Peracles and George,

Plato's of the Good is supposed to be an objective entity or principle which not only governs the universe but is creatively responsible for the existence of everything: 'you may say of the objects of knowledge that not only their being known comes from the good, but their existence and being also come from it, though the good is not itself being but transcends even being in dignity and power'.

Plato compares the Form of the Good with the sun, which provides not only the light which enables us to see things but also the creative energy which brings plants and animals to life; similarly, objective value not only makes everything intelligible but also brings everything into existence; but it is itself 'on the far side of being'.

This metaphysical theory is a real alternative to the doctrine that there is a personal creator, a divine mind or spirit. Its central idea, that objective value both explains things and creates them, has continued as a strand in philosophical and religious thinking, though often combined with or submerged within personal theism. But it deserves to be separated out and examined in its own right. [Leslie, Value and Existence ( Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1979]

Herein, Plato offers a moral realm, to complement the physical universe.

The Realm of Ideas contains the subsets of Perfect Forms [Plato] and Perfect Formulae [Oliver] and the Realm {derived from Lesley] .
Our universe, as noted above, can be seen to exist. Its known form's and numbers in mere approximate agreement with the perfect counterpart. Leslie plays a similar card for morality. As civilized sentient beings we may never recognize perfect morality, yet we can work towards approximating the Realm of Perfect morality.

Thus, if we can explain our unverse as a closed system with science and strive towards personal & civil moralities. What place hath God?

With atheism tethered to metsphysics, we do have two complementary models, which are observable. With God, there is no superset, no model, no evidence, no approximation demostrating reasonable agreement [Kuhn] with anything.