Mathematics as a Frontier for Intelligent Design

Article by David Klinghoffer,

Speaking of Berkeley mathematician Edward Frenkel and his argument that mathematics points to an objective reality behind and outside nature, our friend David Berlinski makes much the same point in his wonderful little book One, Two, Three: Absolutely Elementary Mathematics.

Do yourself a favor and go back and read my review of the latter here. Berlinski

returns again and again to the allusiveness of numbers and the operations we perform on them. They allude, they point to, they gesture to something beyond themselves. Just what that might be, of course -- of course, if you know anything about David Berlinski -- Berlinski won't say.

I have not yet read Dr. Frenkel's book but will do so shortly. I was going to say the "frontier" of math is virgin or unexplored territory for ID, but of course these two great math minds have already pointed the way.

Our world is one is one of concealment. Whereas in our everyday experience, ultimate reality is veiled by subjectivity -- Plato's cave, basically -- elementary math, not unlike the other sciences, suggests in Berlinski's words "as nothing else can the glory that is beyond."

In Greek, that is aeon, the world of ideas. In Hebrew it's olam, whose root means "world," "eternity," or "concealed." Scientism is the project of attempting to convince people that nothing is really veiled from us. What you see is what you get: blunt, dead matter, that's it.

Read Original Article HERE

5 Reasons Why "Naturalism" Fails as a Worldview

Is Naturalism a self-defeating idea to hold onto? Is it possible that Naturalism is insufficient as a perspective on reality in the areas of science, philosophy, and liveability? 

As we discuss in this episode of "Intelligent Faith Radio" the worldview of Naturalism is fraught with intellectual problems and contradictions, and is a completely bankrupt and inconsistent view of reality.  Be sure to take note of the 5 ways in which Naturalism fails, and use it in your conversations and discussions about the Christian worldview.

For more evidences, be sure to download to "Intelligent Faith Radio" podcast from iTunes as well.

A Powerful Apologetic Method: ABDUCTIVE Reasoning!

"What in the world is 'Abductive Reasoing'?" Well, abductive reasoning is employed by crime scene detectives, car mechanics, and your medical doctor.  Abductive reasoning is when you look at all the known facts, and seek to form the best explanation to explain the data.  Abductive reasoning seeks to find the "inference to the best explanation" for the known facts.   

This is a vital way of thinking and investigating that all serious Christians should be engaged in....

 - Pastor J. 

Calculating the Probability of God’s Existence

Dr. Craig,

I am a long timer viewer, my wife and I personally enjoy your On Guard book and my kids enjoy the What is God Like series. My question is one born from frustration dealing with a particular atheist colleague of mine. I definitely affects others around me, including myself, and I can't find anything in your books or website to help address this regarding the probably of God existing equals zero.

Read More

God and the Applicability of Mathematics

Dr. Craig,
In your recent debate with Dr. Rosenberg, you bring to the table two new arguments (at least that I've never seen you propose before). I am enamored with the argument against naturalism based on intentionality. My question regards the argument against naturalism based on the applicability of mathematics.
Isn't it the case that mathematics could, and in my opinion does seem to be, just a useful fiction as you mentioned in your debate? You say something along the lines of "this wouldn't explain how nature seems to be written in the language of mathematics". Isn't it also the case that if mathematical concepts are useful fictions, then they would describe (accurately if well thought out) the universe as apprehended by our perceptions? Shouldn't we expect that our useful fictions would be useful precisely because they accurately describe our observations?
I have thought that perhaps I am missing the point of the argument though. Perhaps it is the case that you aren't saying God must exist because our useful fictions, particularly those of mathematics describing reality, would just be happy coincidence. Indeed, what kind of coincidence would it be that our tools were designed for the purpose they serve? Perhaps you are making the point that without God the universe wouldn't necessarily exhibit these extremely logical properties.
Maybe I'm just completely wrong headed on this. Could you please set me straight?
Keep up the great work for God,
Read Dr. Craig's answer HERE