Richard Swinburne - Did God Create Abstract Objects?

Abstract objects, like numbers and logic, give God problems. Because they always exist and exist necessarily, abstract objects cannot be created or destroyed. 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.



Richard Swinburne is a Fellow of the British Academy. He is Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford.


Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[tedgrant]

The balance on my bank account is an abstract object.
I can hardly see it.

[simonhibbs]

I'm actually with Swinburn on this (unusually) even though I'm an atheist. We know for a fact that logic and therefore mathematics is not perfect. The fly in the ointment is Goedel's theorem which proves that no system of logic can prove it's own axioms, so all logical systems are to some extent arbitrary. As Swinburn points out some systems of logic turn out to accord very well with what we observe in reality, which makes them extremely useful, but that's all. Ultimately they are simply useful languages we construct to help us describe the world we experience, and in fact mathematics is one such language.
Being pro-science this works very well for me, because it means the test of a system of logic or mathematics, or any theory, is how well it accords with observations. After all, that's the scientific method. But the conclusion from that is that the scientific 'laws' that we construct are not determinative. Matter and space and time do not behave the way we observe 'because of' Newton's or Einstein's laws, rather the 'laws' of science are simply descriptions, and as we know they are all currently still incomplete ones. So what is the true nature of reality, and what is determinative of what is real and what happens in the universe? I don't know, but that's a separate question.

[SRAVALM]

Everyone here of gratitude and appreciation for Life, should read/study 'Plato: complete works', and the 'Periphyseon'.
Many, base themselves as the sole perspective, or ultimate viewing angel, concerning science or thought, and the books above teach a person how to think, how to question, and in what way to view something be it abstract or not. School today, has never taught this. The explanation doesn't matter...how you come to the explanation, the very enquiry is everything, the mere discussion of such things is more profitable then hopes of an explanation even.

[philyogaeveryday]

"These things are fictions, useful fictions, but fictions nevertheless"

[lesliegreenhill]

Mr Swinburne should read Flatland again. He and others do no grasp the idea there are things we cannot know. He might also study Jung. As for his comments on Plato, again, I do not think he grasps the idea behind the Forms.

[alanmiller]

"useful fictions that can distort our way of thinking..." I've never heard such a wonderfully precise description of gods.

[SandipChitale]

Unless someone has private channel to god(s) how will they know? which god(s)? Zeus? Vishnu? Mithras?

[douglinze]

Great points! I loved it- it sent my mind racing, not far… I see G_d Entangled in Everything via “Cavitation’s”…
It’s literally in “Everything, Everywhere”… No Matter What! That makes First Principle “Implosion Vortex Wave Dynamics” 100% Holiness because “The Energy” Is Created by the Cavitation’s and it is Omnipresent and Omnipotent…
Vortex “Wells” Creating Implosions from the 3:6:9 Electric Vortex Circuit, First Principle Photosynthesis’s from Exclusion Zones separating Charge, like a plant photosynthesizing Light by splitting molecules, EXACT Same process with my Theory… It’s the most beautiful explanation of Existence Itself, Phase Transitioning as a Toroid, I have the numbers with the Implosion and Explosion built into clockwise and counterclockwise motion… It’s Glorious! Cavitation’s is where the Action is at… Consciousness… If it Moves, it’s Imploding… I drew a beautiful Mural on my wall last night, from the Greatest Circuit in the World… Anyhow, it matches to 100% perfection, every Ancient Mosaic Tiled Floor ever Uncovered…! ELECTRIC INTELLIGENCE…!… EVERYTHING is a Quantum Fractal from the “First Physical Aperature”… A imploded water bubble that created Charge via Exclusion Zones that are automatically invented as phase transitions to go from Neutral charge to Charged… (+) Charged Hydronium IONS vibrating and (-) creating Honeycomb Structure… If it thinks, moves, or Anything it is 100% Cavitating and Entangled with Everything At All Times… That’s God to me… Experiencing Everything… How you gonna know everything if you don’t do everything… DATA is “KING”…

[tanned]

Even to theorize and define what God is, that is an abstract object built upon the realm of metaphysics and idea. To say it is above, the creator, or entirely independent of the constant physical laws that operate in our observable cosmos, it really makes the whole abstract object more abstract. So it is an easy way out to conclude that God has nothing to do with all these concepts.

[ChildofGod]

Without Jesus we would never know the fulness of God. Jesus is the key to the universe for “all things have been created through him” So I’m waiting on Jesus. He gives me strength. As a single mother things aren’t isn’t easy on me. I’m overwhelmed at times because both of my children are autistic. I’m desperately struggling trying to support them and myself because like so many others. I lost my job as a social worker at Forsyth hospital because I declined the vaccine. I declined because of my pre existing health condition lupus and heart disease. I was denied my medical/religious exemption. I wish I could go back to the hospital but the mandate is still in place for hospitals that participate in Medicare and Medicaid. I’m waitressing and I’m so thankful to be working again, but I’m not making nearly enough to make ends meet. But God continues to help me. I get harassed and called names for simply asking for prayers, but prayers are all we need to get by, and when you’re a real christian people will always crucify you. Thankfully, God gives me strength to keep going. I have faith God will provide. He HAS THIS FAR. Please pray for me and my children.

[weeringjohnny]

I'm glad Swinburne can't remember the fifth rule. It proves he's human after all.

[Untilitpases]

Interesting point. Mathematics has often developed as an offshoot of a need from a physical theory.

[websurfer]

When you form a ball you create the form of a ball which is a requisite for having a ball. The form of a ball is a boundary condition for this thing called a ball, a square form is a requirement for having a square!! So, by creating a ball you simultaneously create the spherical form that a ball is!! This boundary condition is exactly what number is to a discreet reality, number is a boundedness that is a requirement for discreetness to exist!! So, number is a consequence and necessity for a discreet reality!!

[vonBottorff]

He's basically saying God cannot be held to human logic, won't say put in a human cage constructed of logic bars, that He may spring around with anti-logical behavior whenever He wants to. And Peano is about getting beyond "counting poems, " i.e., creating an inductive definition of numbers, getting past the irony of numbers being just hearsay distinct and well-ordered, etc. And he mentions some of the paradoxes Peano's successor function raises, i.e., how can we assume the successor "next" function will do exactly what we're assuming it should do? But adding numbers and aggregating things out in the wild are not the same. Addition is an abstract human construct to mirror aggregation, i.e., the whole endeavor of putting groups of things together and having, recognizing a new group made up of the formerly independent things. My view is that if math proves something -- and math doesn't at some point find a way to break this proof -- then we're on some island God has created (for us?), no? IMHO, the most intense human mental effort goes into math proofs. But as Paul Erdos had often said when confronted with a real corker, Math has not advanced enough to answer that question. Indeed, logical entailment is a merciless master. And it's some sort of Platonic somethingorother, right? Sentence utterances, paper publishing notwithstanding.

[Helmutandmoshe]

It's amazing to me how many philosophers who are not mathematicians and do not really understand mathematics declare "truths" about mathematics that are completely contrary to the understanding and knowledge of actual mathematicans.

[Appleblade]

Above the Academy's entrance: Let no one enter who is ignorant of geometry. Probably because shapes clear examples of Forms, they aren't mind dependent, and they have necessary properties that are perfectly precise... and nothing in the physical world has them, so if we know the truths of geometry, we know a world that is superior to this one. It is discoveries in that world--useful formulas, relations, properties--that fuel the discoveries in this world. I imagine the objects in the superior world are offended, but unchanged by, Dr. Swinburne's opinion.

[websurfer]

As far a perfect platonic forms like a platonic square are concerned, there may not be a perfect square in existence in material reality in terms of perfect measures of its sides?? But we arrived at that idea of a perfect square by seeing square shapes and inferring from those shapes that their sides must be exactly equal in measure!! But in this material reality there may not be perfect squares in existence due to our epistemic limitations in measuring lengths and hence creating such a square?? So, it may be true that perfect shapes are mere inferences from imperfect shapes we observe in this world?? But the question is in my opinion is, by what process did we infer that there must be a perfect square with exact measures for each side?? That process is logic, we see a square imperfect as it may be and in our epistemic limitations we infer that the sides look exactly equal, and so we measure the square and find that they are not exactly equal in measure and that we are not precise enough to measure lengths down to such precision, but we accede to the possibility that there must be a perfect square with perfect lengths which this imperfect square was fashioned after?? So, platonic forms may be mere inferences from imperfect forms but the means to that inference is logic which is an invariant in my opinion, and hence as perfect as a perfection can be?? Invariant because logical validity itself is not predicated on truth but only on logical consequence!! But number differs from forms in that number is far more intrinsic, forms depend on their measures for their perfection but one rock on the ground is one rock regardless of how it’s shaped, regardless of its weight, color or any other quality other than its singularity defining it as one rock!!

[markberman]

What if we are bound within a system that has "x" amount of discoverable rules, who bound and created said system and why in the heck would us simple humans think whatever created our universe is bound to anything at all, much less rules implaced by sentient beings that merely reflect interpretations of rules created by the builder of our universe. Can anyone actually, and with facts, state what existed before our universe of indeed all that exists within our universe? We can't even count everything in our universe. Hmmmm and we keep finding things that do not behave as expected....

[chmd]

My gut feeling is that mathematics is discovered and that "a different math" (beyond changing the symbols or proposing new methods) could not in fact be invented, like Swinburne clumsily proposes. He seems to suggest that math is what it is only because it is useful to us, but that strikes me as wrong. It should be easy to disprove that math is discovered. Just invent another one, but to my knowledge, no one ever has done that.

[kallianpublico]

Form is thought's version of matter. Though the "creators" of tables or chairs find forms useful their usefulness lies in their consistent application. Not in their reality or "self-consistency".
Real things are not inferred they are sensed. Forms are partially sensed and partially imposed. This imposition is only useful if it is reinforced by what is sensed: if it is consistent with conscious reality. Thus the rules of logic are not "abstract", numbers and their operations are not consistent with themselves- they are not self consistent, they are consistent with the world.
So how should we regard numbers and logic? As real "things" that we can discover, or as imposed things whose usefulness lie in their consistency with the world? If we rely solely on consciousness numbers and logic do not exist: they cannot be sensed. If we rely on the linguistic mind their "discovery" is found in Plato's "Meno". Their discovery is indoctrinated by a tutorial process. The Meno shows this process but it is not explicitly stated as an algorithm. It goes something like this;1.assertion, 2.assumption, 3.application of assumption to assertion, 4.checking for consistency: if the assumption reaffirms the assertions, 5.memorization of the assumptions if consistency is found.
Trouble comes however when the assertions can not be confirmed consciously. Godel outlines this with his incompleteness theorem. It is revealed in Euclid's assertions about lines being made of points. To emphasize this lack of confirmation ask yourself why matter is made of fundamental particles and not money? How do we know that molecular or atomic reactions are not better modeled on financial transactions and tools than on particles, forces, spin, charge and probability?