Brilliant! Leftow is one of my favorites! Always brings fresh insight and thoughts. Appreciate this channel as well!

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God." How would abstract numbers relate to the concept of the logos?

God was the perfect abstraction for the few to gain control over the many. Fear of death laid the groundwork for the creation of the supernatural, and thus the continuance of life beyond death. The catch was that humans had to hand their minds over to the authorities. Those authorities had already assigned themselves a monopoly with regard to communications with the God they had created. From there, appropriating the grand authority of that God was a logical and easy step. And so authoritarianism was made much easier. If people were forced to accept the God narrative in exchange for not being tortured to death, exercising full control over their minds was a no-brainer. Flash forward to today and the secular authorities have appropriated that grand authority. And their great promise is that we have freedom... freedom that is every bit as real as God.

Thank you, Robert, for exploring all kinds of ideas in an open-minded, intelligent way, and for sharing your journey with us! Your programme has shaped the way I think about the world in a positive way! :)

Abstract objects do not exist, in my view. The "object" itself (a number, say) is a human construction that may, in a more or less limited way, point to a reality that to some extent might be said to exist, but the abstraction itself does not have independent existence apart from the human mind. One way to further demonstrate this is to notice that even if we are referring to an apparently existing phenomenon (or phenomena) - there are six apples on the table, for example - the reality is that there's actually merely a condition of energy "on the table" that appears to us in that way (as "six") because of how our senses are configured. And the table itself is a condition of energy, as is whatever it's standing on, and so forth. So where is the "six?" Not only does the abstract object (i.e., the number itself) not exist, but even the general condition of "six" actually doesn't exist. In the most absolute and fundamental sense, no "six-ness" exists. There's only one self-existing energy "field" (or whatever we want to call the totality - not even one, in fact, but just its Is-ness) and every demarcation of/within that unified situation is merely an artificial human construct for the sake of convenience in describing and possibly understanding it (or let's say apparent aspects of it).

In his essay "The Need for Abstract Entities in Semantic Analysis," Alonzo Church makes a compelling case for the existence of abstract objects. Whatever the merits of Church's argument, one problem for friends of the doctrine of abstract objects is that it leads to ontological inflation: an extravagant ontology of never-ending hierarchy of abstract objects (sets) that makes for a crowded universe, a universe so ridiculously dense that it collapses under its own ontological weight! In mathematics, there are all kinds of schools of thought that more or less arbitrarily limit the "ontological sandbox", aleph 0 (which allows only natural numbers), aleph 1 (which also allows for real numbers), and so on. Some mathematicians (nominalists) claim they can do without abstract objects. Yet most mathematicians take the naive realist position that abstract objects are out there, somewhere, and that we discover them as an explorer discovers new territory. In any case, it seems to me that God, if there is such a Being, has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of such objects. These objects are uncreated, they do not exist in time and space: they are dimensionless and tensessly exist. Perhaps even God can't make His creation from scratch: He needs some kind of readily available raw materials to build the world. The mathematical realm, with its many entities, would serve this purpose admirably. On this view God may well be the architect, the programmer, and abstract objects are His building blocks. Some might be inclined to challenge this common view and dispense with God, arguing that the stuff that makes up our reality emerges from mathematics, not God. This latter view deserves further consideration.

Seems a bit like asking "Do unicorns create pixie dust?"

This is the most rediculous discussion I’ve seen here. What is an “”abstract object”? Our brains make associations and we call them symbols like 5 rocks on a table become 5, and we used to be able to buy a candy bar with 5 cents - which means something because you have the “neural” symbol for 5 and for a penny and a candybar in your brain. But do you honestly think God sits around and makes up symbols and sticks them in our brains so we are able to think about why we have five fingers? Lets hope he didn’t forget any important ones like … well, how would I know,, I’m not God!

Lawrence was sharp to pick up Brian's error; Brian says abstract objects do NOT exist, but rather he believes what God conceives of accounts for that abstract's objects existence (in this case the number 6). Lawrence is saying you're either saying abstract objects exist, or they don't, which is it? Brain thinks his "goddidit" answer allows for abstract objects to exist, but he maintains that abstract objects do not. Lawrence politely says it's the same thing, mate. Brian conveniently gets around this by slamming the God button; God is the beginning/creator of all things, so he precedes (and creates) even abstract objects. (...They also don't exist though, apparently!) Moral of the story is you won't get very far with logic against any homo-sapien who has any sort of investment in anything, such is the nature of the cognitive biases. Such discourse is a fool's errand. Sue me, philosophers.

Another enjoyable video from Robert Kuhn's channel Closer To Truth. Isn't God thought to be SPIRIT? If so, perhaps Abstract has tinges of Spirit more than necessity. A broadening of what Is. Like pretty trim on a house.

Isn’t abstraction itself already an intervention on our part into an ordering of perception, and therefore conditionally, isn’t an abstract object already something that is the reified product of our own abstraction? As subjective beings we abstract all kinds of objects, through our inner experience, and our minds reify them, beginning with giving them names or words for reference. Now, did God secretly embed those names in us? If so, is He then conducting the activities of abstraction through us?

When this universe is a sort of (super) natural world version of a holodeck than there also are a architecture and (abstract) numbers involved being the (super) natural world version of what we consider to be architecture and (abstract) numbers. And because of that we could create (abstract) numbers related sciences. So a god could create or design such holodeck within a space where there are rules.

Thanks

Could abstract objects transition from necessity (existence) to contingency (cause and effect)?

I guess I'm an empiricist. But using the apple analogy, if we can see, feel, toich and or taste an apple and there are six of them, the "sixness" of the group is not abstract but a physical property Can one be a complete skeptic and doubt the actual number of objects? To my way of thinking, designating or describing the number as 6 in this instance is neither abstract nor arbitrary. Interesting discussion I must say

"In the beginning GOD." Even before time GOD... I love this man's explanation: "I don't know because for me all things start with GOD." BROTHER JAMES 🙏🙏🙏

".... I just prefer not to answer the question... Any answer is deeply problematic....". Lol. Exactly. The mind bending top toeing of believers.

Hi to all of you and Dr Lawrence to, of course. Let see that like this. God is a guide, God propose concept to nature, propose to the Cosmos and on and on. Being hurt on earth I just meditate if you want and propose looking at the night sky or the sun or the day sky. The concept is simple but as you go deeper is more complex as usual. Have nice day 😎

Cause and effect is how I try to understand the world/universe.

Very interrsting analogy- I would argue that there are six apples on the table and since we are perceiving 6 of them, they cannot be "abstract" or not a hallucination (that would be the condition). They exist.Now we might ask: did God make them and place them?

Maximus the Confessor would come in handy here.

I am tiring of Closer to Truth! None of the subjects he interviews can ever sufficiently present a shred of evidence for this god they claim exists, yet he never calls the question when presented with more and more complete nonsense. I still am waiting for someone to tell us this god of theirs is something more than a pure presupposition. This interview was just more of an endless stream of mind numbing nincompoopery!

Another tortured explanation to try to prove what doesn't exist. One might conclude god is the ultimate abstraction. Except it is an illusion. To even take this seriously. If an abstracting came from the thinking of god. Then a change of heart could destroy our mathematics. Or how we taste, smell and view things. I think not.

I saw a news report somewhere that claimed VanInwagon has actually seen abstract objects but that they are very tiny!

I think, maybe we have it backwards? What if "god" it's self is an abstraction? What if the concept of an all powerful creator who makes the universe from the top down is upside down? In nature we see structure is built from the bottom up. Atoms build stars and planets, and they make galaxies and cosmic webs. What's the next level up from that? Looking at pictures of the cosmic microwave background radiation, or the cosmic web, it's pretty clear that, relative to these large scale structures, we live on a sub atomic particle.

Goes back to philosophy class: "Can God create a stone He cannot lift?"

God creating tangible stuff and also creating intangible ones put humans without a free will at all. In some way is like saying all of what our children do is because of us. Tangible stuff like quarks, leptons, bosons, and antimatter symmetric particles are more or less followed by physical laws (cause-effect) up to the big bang. Here comes the other big question that is not part of this video. Returning to intangible stuff like math, ethics, language, ideas, and all the abstract existence is in my point of view, created by a few and discovered by the rest of us. The effect (abstract) is created by tangible entities (cause). In other words, the tangible universe creates the intangible one; abstract existence DEPENDS on tangible stuff to be sustained. Any abstract depends on humans, animals? books, computers, etc for their existence. Example: If one has a secret and later dies, the secret also will not exist; it depends on the person that holds it. Another example: Math is created by each human that develops it for the first time and later is discovered by us through knowledge transmission; there is no need for God as the cause-effect understand in the universe creation. Regards

Just my humble opinion here: the first problem I'm hearing is using the term "creating abstract objects". To me, "creation" implies a temporal action that can apply apply to things that are in space and time. God can create a chair. One moment the chair doesn't exist, the next moment it exists. It is therefore created. "2+2=4" is not a thing in space and time that be subjected to such a process, therefore the whole question of "did God create abstract objects?" is nonsensical and therefore should never have even been part of the question. The temptation, I suppose, is to reject the idea of abstract objects altogether because if abstract objects cannot be created and they do necessarily exist, then this implies that God and abstract objects must be somehow at the same level of existence, and this supposedly diminishes the primacy of God. There is, however, another possibility that becomes available when we look at Christian Trinitarian language in which it is said that the Holy Spirit "precedes from the Father". This language was chosen to clarify that the Holy Spirit was not created. It is logically dependent on the transcendent Father and has always existed since the beginning of time. Now keep in mind that the immanent Holy Spirit is "consubstantial" -- that is, it possesses the same "ousios" or essence as the Father, and for this reason, the Holy Spirit is said to be God as well (but subsisting in a different hypostasis, or way of being). But what about other things like our "2+2=4+ statement (that, let's face it, was not "invented" by man)? Clearly this is an abstract object that is not consubstantial with God, and is clearly a lower kind of abstract object. Does it make sense that 2+2=4, even if it is not "created" by God (which, as I have stated, is not possible), might still logically precede from God and thus still be a subservient object in the same sense that all physical things are dependent on God for their existence? After all, we have no problem understanding how corollaries are logically dependent on axioms. Perhaps God (or the Father, to keep it more correct in a Trinitarian way) is simply the highest of all abstract "objects", and all other things, physical things, souls and abstract objects, all precede from His ultimately necessary existence. The next thing that makes me wonder is why people keep insisting that God must be "simple". I can see part of this rationale. Yes, God (and again, I am referring to the Father) is not made of individual pieces like atoms. He is not an emergent entity. He cannot be subdivided. So He is "simple" in this regard. But what else are people thinking when they say He is ultimately simple? Ultimately simple would be a single binary state, with no memories, no power, no internal logic. Is this what we're worshiping? Omniscience implies great inner complexity, perhaps not measured in neurons or megabits or anything physical and complex in this sense, but certainly complex in regard to information. This can take us back to our concept of abstract objects and how they relate to God. If they are all logically dependent on God, then God encompasses every number, every mathematical truth, every logical statement, every possibility, true or false, not as bits stored in a memory cell s in God's brain, but as abstract objects that precede from God, the highest of all in the hierarchy of transcendent entities. There's one more thing that I am concerned about: this question about God having "free will". Apparently, because God was "forced" to allow "2+2=4", God's hands are somehow tied and He doesn't have free will. But what does free will even mean? The ability to do anything, even things that go against your own very nature? Would I be practicing free will if I suddenly began injecting myself with heroin? I think not. I would be committing an error, going against my nature to seek ultimate happiness and operating in a self-destructive manner. God has a nature as well. He is the Highest Moral Good. In order for Him to truly practice free will, He would have to behave all the time according to His all good nature. Is it therefore any wonder that 2+2=4 and not 5? What a messed up world this would be if numbers did not behave according to set rules! Abstract objects, therefore, are the way they are not because God was "forced" into allowing them to have power over our universe, but because God is all good and because He does have free will and thus chose to allow these abstract objects to have power in our world. Of course, I realize that everything I just said makes no sense if you don't believe in an Ultimate Good Cause of All Things. Fair enough. And obviously, if God is a transcendent entity as I (and most religions) insist, then I won't be presenting you with any physical evidence for God's existence any time soon. Nevertheless, I must disagree that the belief in God is wholly a matter of "faith" (and I assume the posters that use this term are implying some emotional or arbitrarily selected belief). The universe exists rather than not exist, it has tremendous beauty and complexity, and possesses laws that appear to be finely tuned to bring about this beauty. Human beings not only exist, but exist in a personal, moral and conscious way. Moral truths appear to be self-evident and understandable to the human mind. Now I could go on and on, but the point is: I have rational reasons for believing in God, not as some ghostly white-haired, robed figure that lives in the clouds, but a transcendent, logically necessary and ultimately moral cause of all things. And yes, I recognize there are good arguments to made against this (primarily regarding the problem of evil), but in my humble opinion, the existence of abstract objects is not one of them.

"If there would be nothing..."... then we woukdnt be thinking on it.

God God God! That's all this !diot said! There has never been a shred of evidence for the existence of God but this guy knows it all so it must be God!

Essentially Mr Leftow is answering the 'why is there anything rather than nothing' with God being the fundamental essence from which everything springs up from. Whereas Mr.Kuhn and other scientists answer this question with many worlds or infinite space and the recognition of abstract objects which must exist in any possible situation, even in the absence of existence. It seems to me that if God is bound by such restraints as absolute truths of abstract objects, he must be infinitely static and as such would be a mere idea assigned to the task. He or she or non-binary would have no choice in anything and could not make any change whatsoever. So this would go against his own supposed nature of being infinitely powerful.

In what sense are abstract objects objects? Perhaps metaphorically?

"Thats nice' about sums this up.

Imagine, if you would be alone in this world and just woke up and see that you are thirsty and need water and have water there who kills your thirst ...you get hungry and there are bannaas and veggies, you have ear to listen you have eyes to see ..there are rivers, oceans, blue sky, day and night coming and going.. what would you conclude?? 1. There is nobody except you 2. There is somebody.

I think that if you accept a priori that God is a creator of the world then it follows that abstract objects would be part of this creation.

This channel really twists my mellon

Berkeley?

Are abstract objects about ontology, more than epistemology?

I don't see much of any difference between the concept of God not being able to make a logical contradiction (married bachelor) and God not being able to control the consequences of existence bring about abstract objects.

"That's nice... that's nice" :D

Applying the constraints of human thought and comprehension and putting that onto a god and saying " well how does he do it then".... is kinda missing the point. We are inside the fish bowl looking out saying , well how the hell is it ment to move without flippers .

The concept of abstract objects means nothing before the possibility of realization. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of nothingness. In a state of nothingness you are in need of necessary being in which the abstract becomes possible. Now, saying this I’m not putting any attributes on this necessary being other than that which at the base level is the one brute necessary fact at the bedrock of all other existence.

There are no propositions "floating out there". There are human thoughts and the products of human hands. No ideas floating around attached to nothing.

Abstract objects don't in any way refute the general concept of gods.

For what I have heard the act of conscience envolves a communication to god. I would jump to the conclusion that our consciousness consists and builds upon of a event based simulation (look up computer network event simulations) using the comunication channel made available for the manipulationion of "the abstract objects" made available by god. Thank you for this video. I have all new view on this matter now of what constitues consciousness. UPDATE 1: Thinking still about this formation of consciousness would not only be done by the process above, but also by interaction with other consciousness beings. So our consciousness would also be afected and formed to a greater or lesser degree transitvly by "the other abstract objects" all the other consciousness interact with.

The abstract objects are the Ring itself, the emanation from oneness, and the world we see degraded from both.

Abstraction is the natural condition of the mind. The body is a symbol of a concrete form of fear. The seemingly objective world and the body are part of the same illusion, perceived through a split mind (consciousness).

We've now passed the TWO YEAR ANNIVERSARY of "TwO wEeKs To fLaTtEn MuH CuRvE"

(2:15) *BL: **_"If you're thinking creation involves a beginning or the possibility of it not being that way, then you're right to be puzzled."_* ... When it comes to "creation," there are two options on how an all-powerful God can pull this off: *(1)* God can merely say, *_"Be!"_* and a universe magically appears all elegantly clad in its current celestial regalia. *(2)* God started the universe out via simplicity and slowly evolved it into complexity over billions of years. The problem with both options is that *option (1)* is obviously not how it happened, and why would it ever be necessary for an all-powerful God to start out simple and evolve things into complexity over time - as in *option (2)* ? When we examine how the universe evolves, how life evolves, how societies evolve, and even how inventions evolve from conception to actualization, ... we discover a similar pattern! At this point in _our own_ evolution, maybe it's time to reconsider what we are defining as God. It might be that theism's "God" is actually something we can all comprehend ... _and even relate to?_

To not be able to conceive that there could not be abstract objects if God does not exist, to my mind only means that the conception of “what God is” is too small.

i believe in the either. that theres some geometric shapes that make up the fabric of the universe. within that, i believe GOD does all sorts of abstract art.

Wait, I’m confused? If something is an object, it’s physical. If something is abstract it’s a construct of thought. How can they be one in the same?

🙏💓

Q. Where does knowledge come from?

"But could God have created abstract objects? If so, how? If not, God would no longer be all-powerful and 100 percent sovereign, as theology requires, because he would not have created everything that exists." If God created "everything" then he created himself. If God exists outside of what we call "everything" then why even debate things like abstract objects, it becomes meaningless since our brains are incapable of ultimate understanding.

Is this not just a rehash of Bishop Berkeley? What if abstractions are part of God?

Only if you put restriction on,what God can do. We once thought it was impossible to break the sound barrier. So god can,do,all,things. If he wishes. He just might not wish to do something. But. Even we as humans have done way more than we thought possible. So why restrict god to,anything,,,, it states all things are possible with god. ,,

Hey God, come tell us what/ who you are. Define yourself!

Disappointing. Questions about God are like questions about whether shaking a blood-dipped zebra tail at the full moon can make a woman fertile. As in, they're all stupid questions because the presence of God in the argument renders them so.

Seems to me this guy is trying hard to believe the things he is saying, fails to find the right words but won't admit it to himself.

God is the constant.

A timeless (and therefore changeless) god-type existing in a perspective of the B-Theory of Time (Ref. Stanford and Time) does not create anything-ever. From that highest and widest perspective (not ours), all things have always been eternally concluded. I.e., there was never the case where all-things have not always existed together one with the other. Noting ever goes from Not-X to X.

No, but yes. Yes in the manner that they came to be from Her. No in the manner that She wasn't bogged down with the small things. Like drawing a picture of a car, you draw what it is, not what's inside. That's the beauty of a universe. It's like pushing a child on a bike. Eventually the goal is it happens by itself. #rotaerxmai

Can anybody translates this concept into a simple understandable way, please?

Is God not an abstract identity? We need better proofs over beliefs. Is the existence of God verifiable? The guy is obviously grounding his ideas on faith over reason, the old Anselm argument re-worded.

In order for abstracts to exist, there's no need of god

Oh boy this convo is very misplaced. Abstract objects exist in the human mind as a way of explaining and ordering physical phenomena. Abstraction is our way of explaining reality. If we’re created by god is irrelevant to reality for any purpose besides us explaining to ourselves what there is and how it works.

Why debate abstract objects?? You're overlooking the biggest conundrum of all: who created God?

God created ALL things, seen and unseen. Colossians 1:16.

X-Files Truth (love) created good (god). Every miraculous work of fine art called "life" created by Love is so rare and unique that each one happens only once in time, space and dimension. Bullets, bombs and missiles...not so much. These things are created by vampires (greed).

Mishamu Metaphysician Philosopher

Can God plant ideas in your mind? Can the Devil plant ideas in your mind? If you believe in God but reject the reality of the Devil, could you still be a Christian?

God didn’t create abstraction of any kind. God created a real world that functions and our minds layer abstraction on top of it. Minds create abstractions. This misunderstanding is like confusing the menu for the food and eating the menu instead.

non-starter in arguing against God

Abstract concepts -- requires mind and consciousness, influenced by already had sense perception memory, utilizing the imagination or fantasy(exercising creativity) if you seek to grasp the concepts. If there was a state of nothing we couldn't imagine anything because we never had a starting point, an inspiration or an aspiration to go after. We know things by their attribution. We know light only because of it's attribution being illumination. We can to a degree fathom God because of the many attributions of the cosmos and ALL. What abstract concept could you come up with had it not been for existence, consciousness, Intellect, Life, contemplation, wonder, creativity, imagination. Did God create abstract concepts -- I don't think that's properly put but yes because of consciousness & Intellect. There's form and matter is formless, the very abstract concept(Soul) is the form that becomes created when brought into matter. You can't say what are created things are abstract rather that which is form of the created things are abscract. The abstracts would likely come from the ALL Soul or Cosmos Soul.

Reality is an object. A mindless creator is the object itself. The object is possibly a form of nothingness. Opinions are not fact. Evidence of the object is this comment. I know of no savior separate from myself. The cause of reality is not required to have consciousness or will.

Our Creator was able to dream up all the visible images that we're able to observe and program that information into invisible vibrations that our created minds process into visible images that the AI system of the Creation/Simulation can observe. It's sort of like a computer programmer taking very well planned images, the colors and all the measurements within his mind and striking keys on a keyboard using CAD to form those images on a computer screen that Apple siri can observe.

Atheistic materialism is self refuting.

All I know is, keep talking about God with your science and I'm a gonna drop off your sub list.

Abstract object come out of God's nature?

Guys, please dont hurt your brains so much. There is an elementary way to think about it: we are in God's dream. Anything is possible in a dream.

You don't know how to answer that because it's a belief - beliefs aren't answerable

Why were numbers always there? The Universe doesn't use numbers we do.. we are abstract. We are creative, and our creativity is to be random, and the more random you are the madder you appear to be. Also you talk about particles as if they are real things, but particles are also abstract objects. Particles are made from gravity spinning around in holes, so don't really exist at all. Particles are like bubbles in space, all of the things around you are made from the equivalent of bubbles stacked together. In-flows, and out-flows make things either soft, or hard. The problem with science is that nobody is using any real physics, and then nobody has an option between God, and reality. Reality wins, the Standard Model, and God both lose.

Abstract objects = contradiction in terms. If they are abstract they can't be objects. As for invisible friends creating them. Did an abstraction create abstractions? Why are they still asking silly questions like this?

God is not of this universe he created this universe. So therefore all the laws of this universe were created by God.

How por theology. God created inmaterial angels.

The God’s creates everything, and gives us an opportunity to find out how he created them!

God in the sense they use it doesn't exist so the question is pointless.

Say God created himself and space and time from nothing. This act did not take up any 'space' or destroy the 'nothing' so why should only this God exist? What's to stop another god or infinite other gods from doing exactly the same thing in a different 'nothing'? Now you just have Platonism with gods instead of abstract mathematical objects which seems unnecessarily complicated.

The guest is too affected by his own belief bias to answer the question correctly. According to most conceptions of God, God is a "first cause" in and of itself and not reliant on anything or any prior cause or condition to exist. Therefore, even in a condition of absolute nothingness, God would have to be said to be possible to exist. The condition of nothingness could not be an impediment to the existence of "something" that definitionally was not reliant on any condition for its existence.

Genetic information is abstract. So is music and math. All three are gifts of God. Dan

talking about abstract, don't bring God in, a minutes God is involve, the whole new mess is created.

A nonexistent entity can't create anything

(Did you see (GOD) inside the sun

God didn't create anything, because God doesn't exist. Duh!

Nope

God gave Adam the power to name the things around him. In Gen.2;19 only living creatures are mentioned, but Adam's mind could ofcourse invent fantasy beings, abstract things, like unicorns, and name them (in Hebrew, ofcourse) Numbers are very much created by God; everywhere within the Holy Scriptures numbers are important.

The answer is simple Robert there is no god

Painful.

God???? 🙄