LDS Apologetic Response to Atheistic Materialism

[Tarski]

Lol, I'm not talking about imperfect human justice, I'm talking of perfect justice.

However, people will be justified in doing whatever they want if there is no God, that is the truth.

Lol, I'm not the type of person to murder or steal or do any of those things, but there are some who are. There are some who are still like that, when there exists a God (look at Hitler, Stalin, etc).

You will notice, I am not criticizing atheists, I am criticizing the fact that their belief leads to things which they do not realize.

Religion leads to things that believers don't realize. Behold, the world!

Oh and your sentence is false. It is NOT true that "people will be justified in doing whatever they want if there is no God".

There is no sense in which I would be justified in causing an innocent child to suffer needlessly with or without God. Period.

Repeating this ridiculous idea that morals cannot exist without God doesn't make it true.

In fact, in reality, right now, morals exist and God does not. QED.

[TAO]

Religion leads to things that believers don't realize. Behold, the world!

You were not reading what I was saying correctly, that you weren't.

Oh and your sentence is false. It is NOT true that "people will be justified in doing whatever they want if there is no God".

There is no sense in which I would be justified in causing an innocent child to suffer needlessly with or without God. Period.

For the millionth time, I'm not criticizing atheists, I'm criticizing what your ideals permit. And there will be people, like it or not, who take advantage of a world with no law. Luckily, our world has a God, and a law.

Repeating this ridiculous idea that morals cannot exist without God doesn't make it true.

In fact, in reality, right now, morals exist and God does not. QED.

No, morals can exist, all right, just not universal morals. There is no 'correct' thing in a world without God. Someone who murders according to his 'morals' is just as justified as someone who opposes murder according to his 'morals'. That's the ultimate degeneration that happens if there is no God, and no law applied for justice to exist.

[Tarski]

You were not reading what I was saying correctly, that you weren't.

For the millionth time, I'm not criticizing atheists, I'm criticizing what your ideals permit. And there will be people, like it or not, who take advantage of a world with no law. Luckily, our world has a God, and a law.

For the millionth time my ideals do not permit anything worse than what your ideals permit. For example, my ideals do not permit theft or murder or even unkindness. Get it?

No, morals can exist, all right, just not universal morals.

We don't need universal morals as much as we need good morals. I don't care if my morals do not apply at the center of the sun or in a distant galaxy. Our morals will be as universal as we can achieve by earthly means such as literature, dialogue, good example, etc. In any world we have to struggle to get people to adopt the best morals. Your God does not seem to help with convincing the Taliban to respect human rights now does he? So we have to work to promote ideals in anycase, God or no God. Indeed, it is the very fact that the Taliban thinks they are justified by God that makes the whole thing so difficult. The idea of God is getting in the way now isn't it?.

[mfbukowski]

Tarski, I don't know what it is about you but I just like you on a personal level for some stupid reason I cannot fathom. I think there is an honesty there I don't see in a lot of the others who take your atheistic position.

I just wish we could communicate better. In the old days, I might get together with you over a few beers, but now.... Anyway, we should get together some time.

Why? All I am saying is that the universe has the property that IF humans came along and did such and such an experiment then such and such would be the result.

Yes but can you see that this is total speculation with no possibility of ANY kind of proof? We CAN'T know that- not ever! What it would have been like if there were no humans to know what it would have been like.... etc.

Right now, there may "be" (for sake of the discussion) hypothetical planets universes galaxies etc with out any humans to know about them. What are THEY "like"? Instead of humans they are inhabited by Orcs. Orcs have trunks like elephants which they use as a single appendage for everything..... etc.

See the point? We just don't know what we don't know!

I am just trying to not do violence to our conceptual foundations that make thinking even possible. One of these foundations is the distinction between "to be" and "to be known". One could attribute more or less ontological weight to various entities, be they abstractions, sense data, or lumps of concrete, depending on one's philosophical disposition and still respect the semantic difference I am talking about.

Oddly, this reminds me a little of the idea that "spirit matter" is "more refined" than regular matter. But such distinctions do not appear to be "ontological" to me, they are just part of a hypothetical unproven continuum of types of matter or types of "forms"- I am not really sure what you are driving at here I guess. It is still sounding awfully Platonic in my opinion. I am not familiar with any type of ontology which postulates this.

In fact, I have noticed that you respect the difference in ordinary conversation and only get weird when waxing philosophical.

I think you are talking about the difference between "existence" and "knowing" and how we speak about those, and first I think we don't talk much at all about existence in ordinary speech, but I won't argue that we all often speak imprecisely as long as we understand each other, and get into all kinds of confusions and misunderstandings also. Ya know what I'm sayin'?

But I think you are speaking of statements like "There are probably thousands of undiscovered species of plants in the Amazon" where one is asserting the "existence" of something which is yet unknown. And yes, I would agree that such statements make sense- I "understand what you are saying" when you say that. But obviously, such a statement is really total speculation scientifically. Highly probable speculation perhaps, but totally unscientifically provable! Exactly how many species are unknown? How do we test for the existence of undiscovered species? Those answers are unknowable and unprovable! Those species are science-fiction at this moment, as "real" as Orcs. (I also believe there is some sense in which unicorns "exist"- there is a word for them, they are in the dictionary, we know what they look like, they are part of our culture- they are just not objectively observable. They "exist" in our imaginations only and we can talk about imaginary things, which gives them some level of social construction I suppose) And yes, upon reflection, I realize that I do occasionally "cut out" of a Wittgensteinian stance because it seems nobody understands him. So perhaps there is something to this apparent duality in the way I present these issues. It is very hard to explain guys like Whitehead and Wittgenstein who use language in a way unlike ordinary language while you are using ordinary language. It does appear contradictory sometimes I suppose. But I think there is no way around that except to be as explicit as you can be when you are doing it.

No the possibility of being interpreted exists because of the structure of natural law. It isn't as if nature behaves one way when there are only ants looking and another when humans look. The objective side of things is the amenability to an interpretation as opposed to the lack thereof.

To me, this is a chicken/egg question. You are on one side, I am on the other. But the ants point is a different thing- what ants do or so not think is totally irrelevant and unknowable to us as humans. Yes, we should take care of animals- but that is human ethics. When animals can talk to us- and in some sense perhaps signing Chimps and trained porpoises can- that becomes part of the human linguisitic social fabric, and perhaps it has relevance.

It is OK to think in terms of possibilites. I can consider the set of all possiblilities in a given context and give that set ontological weight if I find it helpful to my thinking.

Aha! You are thinking here like a Pragmatist! It is YOU who are giving ontological weight! See that?? Key point! Red underlining! (I won't do that though)

It can be phrased in terms of conditionals I suppose. If humans come into being and if they employ the following concepts and if they do the following experiments then...

Again- see what you are doing here? You are CONSTRUCTING a theory to make sense out of it. Perhaps you are right, perhaps not, but you are constructing- it is clear that is the activity happening here- it is not "discovery"- it is "construction"

Of course, there isn't even any pragmatic value in asserting that before humans came along there were no mountains or atoms. The fact that we pick out those features with human words and concepts from the vantage point of the present doesn't ruin anything for me about existence or objectivity. It is quite rational to recognize that understanding things in the universe means the activity of cognitive/epistemic agents who employ concepts fitted to their interests, and at the same time assert that those things exist independent of us in exactly the sense that when we formed our concepts it was from kicking the universe and seeing how it kicked back. It is in the kicking back that we find objectivity.

I like the way you put that. Yes it DOES kick back doesn't it? But what is important here again is that to me, you are implicitly doing what I am talking about- you are talking about CREATING a theory and then testing to see if the universe will kick back as you predicted. Yes that is how it works. And when a better theory comes along which responds to the kicks better, we take that one over the first. What is happening is the construction of a theoretical framework which "works" until the universe kicks in a way we didn't account for in the theory, and then it is on to a new theory.

If one goes around saying that things do not exist when we don't look or when we aren't around to use concepts, it creates the unhelpful impression that we could have created things anyway we wanted and this is to ignore the "kicking back" that I mentioned above. Nature resists us.

Point taken. What is important though and what I want to emphasize is that sometimes that "nature kicking" can happen on a personal level. A natural event can change our lives completely. We can lose a home, or a loved one, our health, become impaired in some way etc. So what of that? How do we deal with that on a personal level? THAT is what we are talking about here. And when our objective in life is a comprehensive understanding of our position in the world (my personal objective) nature kicking me personally in the face is going to be more important than nature kicking someone else. Not always, and it depends on a whole universe of variables, but THAT is the issue with being a single solitary human in this universe which kicks. A unified theory of what it "means"- the significance- of being a human in a universe which kicks DEMANDS (for one so inclined) that I use my experiences to construct a theory to account for those experiences. For me, such a theory, confirmed by ongoing experience, is contained in what I have come up with on my own as extended into history by the Church of JCLDS, as a comprehensive system which explains that "kicking universe" to my complete satisfaction. It "works" very well for me. Maybe it will not work for you, but I can account for that fact in my theory - in my construction of what is "true". And that theory has been confirmed and re-confirmed for me now to the point where I can say "I know my theory is true". You may not know it, but I do.

It is much safer to just use language like "before man there were primative primates that used tools but ....". or senteces like "long before there was life, the universe was filled with hydrogen gas." A pragmatist must surely realize how unhelpful it is to refuse to assert such things.

Of course Pragmatists do! The only problem with your sentences are that they are not necessarily true! Now if you put the words (or understand the sentences to mean) something like: "Science tells us (to the best of our present knowledge) that there were ... primates before humans, hydrogen gas etc such sentences are without a doubt "true" in every way science can verify them. They work. But such sentences do not speak of "reality"- they speak of what we KNOW about what science teaches us at present!

I am not sure about substance either and I am not a fan of substance/accident metaphysics although there are perfectly fine and intuitive echos of this way of thinking in ordinary language.

Yes, and this relates to my earlier protestations about ordinary language not really being adequate to the task.

It just doesn't rise to the level of a grand metaphysics. As for "substance" in particular, I have an intuition for the word as it is used in ordinary pre-philosophical conversation, but I do not see anything clearly answering to it in modern physics. As for "being", I also have an intuition, but I cannot say for sure that it is not just an illegitimate reification of the ordinary vegitarian concept that this or that may or may not exist. For example, I think it perfectly rational, maybe even necessary to make assertions like "life does not exist on pluto" or "a solution to this equation does not exist".

Incredibly enough, I agree with all this. Except I have no doubt that such statements are reifications of linguistic inaccuracies. In fact that is a catchy phrase I will keep in my repetoire.

On the other hand, I have had some numinous experiences where I felt compelled to talk about "Being". Just poetry perhaps.

Hang onto those. You are after all, human. They may help you some day.

[cdowis]

No the possibility of being interpreted exists because of the structure of natural law. It isn't as if nature behaves one way when there are only ants looking and another when humans look.

Really? Are you so certain about that.

Perhaps some variant of the Copenhagen interpretation may give some light on this issue. The world of quantum mechanics is stranger than we can even imagine.

[cksalmon]

If you think your bank account is not socially constructed, I suggest you go ahead and spend all you like and add nothing, and ignore all those letters you will be getting from your account which is NOT "socially constructed". And when the men in blue appear to take you away, tell them they are figments of your imagination too, since reality is not socially constructed and they are not real.

But, of course, I wouldn't think that they were figments of my imagination and, obviously, would believe that they were "real." But, I'm at a loss here: you seem to be arguing that my realization that the men in blue are not merely figments of my imagination somehow depends upon my acquiescence to the belief that "reality" is a "social construct"; of course, I don't deny that certain social entanglements depend upon rules of social construction. My rather simple point, of course, was that numerical units do not supervene vis-

[Tarski]

Really? Are you so certain about that.

Perhaps some variant of the Copenhagen interpretation may give some light on this issue. The world of quantum mechanics is stranger than we can even imagine.

It is far stranger in popular accounts than it is in practice or in reality. Please read Stenger's book "The Unconsious Quantum" or the slightly easier book:

Where Does The Weirdness Go?: Why Quantum Mechanics Is Strange, But Not As Strange As You Think

I have no patience for interpretations of quantum mechanics that implicate human consciousness as a fundamental feature. I know how much some people love this idea but so much the worse for them.

[mfbukowski]

I missed the argument from your "construction of what is true" to the Restoration's having been proven to be (no air quotes) true by your lights. Is there a difference? What is it?

No argument, experience.

Everyone knows you cannot "prove" the existence of God scientifically (ie: to others) and neither can you disprove him. If that is the kind of argument you were looking for, good luck finding it anywhere.

My only point is that you can subjectively have experiences which will prove it to the individual's satisfaction.

[TAO]

For the millionth time my ideals do not permit anything worse than what your ideals permit. For example, my ideals do not permit theft or murder or even unkindness. Get it?

But you aren't the only person with ideals out there. There are some people out there with ideals called 'dictatorship', 'genocide' and 'dishonesty' among other things. And they will do their very best to apply these ideals on many people who meet them.

We don't need universal morals as much as we need good morals. I don't care if my morals do not apply at the center of the sun or in a distant galaxy. Our morals will be as universal as we can achieve by earthly means such as literature, dialogue, good example, etc. In any world we have to struggle to get people to adopt the best morals. Your God does not seem to help with convincing the Taliban to respect human rights now does he? So we have to work to promote ideals in anycase, God or no God. Indeed, it is the very fact that the Taliban thinks they are justified by God that makes the whole thing so difficult. The idea of God is getting in the way now isn't it?.

Ah, but that is the point precisely: bad morals such as those lifted above seek for universality. Dictatorship seeks to control people. Genocide seeks to eliminate opposition till only the majority remains. Dishonest engenders other people to be dishonest. No, we do not just need good morals, nor do we just need universal morals, we need universal good morals, both at the same time. And like it or not, a world without a God cannot have this. For in places that ideas exist, in places that thinking exist, and above all, in places where questions exist, universality cannot spread. It can try, but eventually, all the questions will have to be answered, or there will never be the satisfaction necessary for universality. It is this drive to know, and to try new things that gives people disagreeing opinions, and I have to say, I'm one of those people who likes to try new things, and to do things my own way. Luckily, I've been humbled before my father's wisdom, and I see the purpose behind the things that I ask about.

Ah, you say, why is their not universality now? Well it's because, "...this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors."(section of Alma 34:32). Eventually, however, we will know everything, but that cannot come till all are tested, till all have received their trials, till all have performed their labors. Until this time, universality cannot exist, but once this happens, absolute universality will no longer be a goal, it will be an existence.

God has given us free agency to choose what we will not receive in the next life. The Taliban choose theirs, and as of such, they will receive their reward, whatever God judges it to be.

[Tarski]

But you aren't the only person with ideals out there. There are some people out there with ideals called 'dictatorship', 'genocide' and 'dishonesty' among other things. And they will do their very best to apply these ideals on many people who meet them.

So what??????????

This is true whether there is a God or not. Many of these dictators believe in God. Universal morals seem to have no effect. Even religions can't agree. You haven't got a point at all.

[MistahStokes]

You are exactly correct if you believe that you will live forever. Or you know for a certainty that there is no life after death. With those assumptions, there is no need for the Restored Gospel, but once you admit that everyone will die, and there is a possibility of life after mortality, then it makes sense to look at it.'

Tithing, priesthood ordinances, the temple, sabbath worship, the sacrament are all about preparing ourselves for the next life. It only makes sense if we believe that we will move onto another existence after mortality.

But if you are certain there is no life after death, don't worry about this stuff. The Gospel has no meaning for you.

It's like you are trying to talk to someone about the wisdom of paying insurance premiums.

Can't win the lotto if you don't play, right?

Outdated?

Show me how this refutes Wittgenstein!

There is a grand ole saying that you bring to mind, "Wittgenstein is for those who can find a resonance in his vision before reading his work." He didn't stop philosophical investigation with a language game, I know you really like the idea of hand waving away philosophical investigation, but try to keep up with the times.

Start with Dummet's Origins of Analytical Philosophy, he gives an account of Semantic theory via Ferge that simply does away with what you are trying to do here with "meaning"

You are just resorting to personal attacks because I recognized you and outed your sockpuppet. Oh well.

That is some feat, since I regularly reffer to my other names. Ya found me out...along with Ttribe and others some months ago.

Yes of course. I just love that place. I would like you to show me exactly ONE "self-refuting concept"

Already did.

So you are maintaining that "words" have no meaning? Really good point!

Yes! This is exactly what I'm proposing by pushing a semantic theory. Well done!

[MistahStokes]

My case is that G heightens and enhances the meaning of A-F.

Interesting. Does G stand alone in it's goodness like A-F? Also, if I get 5 units of meaning out of A, but I take on G, could I get something like another 3 units of meaning? If so, how does that work? If the meaning I find in my relationship with my girlfriend is good, how does the Mormon Faith make it better than good? By making a metaphysical promise that we'll be together forever? I think there are some unfounded assumptions that any relationship is automatically made even better by the concept of it lasting for eternity.

Though it need be simply an honest reflection of how they see the matter. It's no more hubristic than the secularist assuring the theist that he is deluded. :-) I think it works best if we just assume that each other's motives are both sincere, and not grounded in intense psychopathology.

You are 100% correct here.

Besides, why assume that the theist has not experienced both states of being? I have been both far from God, and near him. I've seen both sides.

I think it just raises some very difficult questions between Free Will, an all loving God who wants a relationship with us, and reasonable non-belief.

[cksalmon]

No argument, experience.

Everyone knows you cannot "prove" the existence of God scientifically (ie: to others) and neither can you disprove him. If that is the kind of argument you were looking for, good luck finding it anywhere.

I hear what you're saying, mfbukowski. My question is different. I'm not asking if you can prove the existence of the LDS God to someone else; rather, I'm asking how you personally move from a situated construction of what is "true" to something that is universally true, if indeed, that is, you actually believe that the theological tenets of Mormonism are universally true (I confess, I'm not sure that you do based on your posts).

That is to say, considering your espoused views, both general ("we create reality") and idiosyncratic (i.e., your construction of what is "true" that happens to "work" very well for you), how do you propose we get to an uncreated truth that is not specific to your idiosyncratic experience? Or, can we? That's sort of what I'm asking.

That is: Does the God of orthodox LDS faith exist even without any reference to Joseph Smith, the Restoration, and the priesthood keys, etc? Or, is the truth value of the claim "The God of Mormonism exists" (and feel free to fill in that identifier with the conception of the LDS God you deem best representative) dependent upon your own personal construction of reality (or a reality-construction engaged in by your larger community)?

My only point is that you can subjectively have experiences which will prove it to the individual's satisfaction.

Sure, I'm not denying that. But does the LDS God exist outside of the scope of your subjective experiences? Beyond the subjective experiences of 10 billion like-minded individuals?

[TAO]

So what??????????

This is true whether there is a God or not. Many of these dictators believe in God. Universal morals seem to have no effect. Even religions can't agree. You haven't got a point at all.

However, there IS universal justice at the end of it all with a God. There is not such with atheism. Universal justice doesn't exist with atheism, just people's justice - which at times can be petty, corrupt, faulty, and unfair. The good thing about a world with God is that morals have a point, however, it is not so with an atheistic world. In an atheistic world, you can throw away your morals, and it is just fine. There is no universal justice, and indeed, universal justice is a part of universal morals, and without those both, people may do things to hurt others without a burden on their conscience.

[MistahStokes]

However, there IS universal justice at the end of it all with a God.

What form does this universal justice take?

[TAO]

What form does this universal justice take?

The judgment, no?

[mfbukowski]

Start with Dummet's Origins of Analytical Philosophy, he gives an account of Semantic theory via Ferge that simply does away with what you are trying to do here with "meaning"

"Does away with what I am trying to do here?" Again you don't even see what I am trying to do here. Dummet makes the exact same point I would make if we could ever get to it. Yes of course he disagrees with Wittgenstein on some details of the philosophical structure of "what I am trying to do here" but overall his objectives are identical.

For purposes of this discussion, the differences you try to emphasize amount to exactly nothing. You are citing them just as a put-down and questioning my understanding of the issues. The differences are irrelevant for the overall discussion!

LOL

Talk about hand-waving!

And since you are so concerned about any "lurkers"- numbered in the thousands who of course are following every detail and nuance of this highly entertaining thread, I will show them what I mean from a secondary source.

God

In his Gifford Lectures, Dummett presents an argument for the existence of God that depends on his justificationist semantics. According to justificationist semantics, any account of the way the world is must be an account of the way the world is perceived by someone. We know that different animals perceive the world in different ways, and we aspire to break out of the limitations of merely human perception, and perceive the world as it is in itself

[MistahStokes]

For purposes of this discussion, the differences you try to emphasize amount to exactly nothing. You are citing them just as a put-down and questioning my understanding of the issues. The differences are irrelevant for the overall discussion!

When you said this...

Subjective and objective are really two sides of a great logical divide- you cannot mix statements which are objectively verifiable with subjective observations- to do so is to confound "language games" and imo, causes the whole mind/body free will/determinism and other philosophical alleged "problems" which really are not problems at all- just linguistic issues.

But Dummet shows very powerfully that problems in Metaphysics (in his case, Numbers) are not based on language.

Glad you are staying on top of this.

Did you even know Dummet was a practicing Catholic?

Why does is matter if he is Catholic?

[mfbukowski]

I hear what you're saying, mfbukowski. My question is different. I'm not asking if you can prove the existence of the LDS God to someone else; rather, I'm asking how you personally move from a situated construction of what is "true" to something that is universally true, if indeed, that is, you actually believe that the theological tenets of Mormonism are universally true (I confess, I'm not sure that you do based on your posts).

That is to say, considering your espoused views, both general ("we create reality") and idiosyncratic (i.e., your construction of what is "true" that happens to "work" very well for you), how do you propose we get to an uncreated truth that is not specific to your idiosyncratic experience? Or, can we? That's sort of what I'm asking.

That is: Does the God of orthodox LDS faith exist even without any reference to Joseph Smith, the Restoration, and the priesthood keys, etc? Or, is the truth value of the claim "The God of Mormonism exists" (and feel free to fill in that identifier with the conception of the LDS God you deem best representative) dependent upon your own personal construction of reality (or a reality-construction engaged in by your larger community)?

Sure, I'm not denying that. But does the LDS God exist outside of the scope of your subjective experiences? Beyond the subjective experiences of 10 billion like-minded individuals?

Brief answer number one:

Although I don't actually believe it exactly this way, I will give you an approximation with some incorrect buzzwords which will communicate effectively but are not exactly right- ok?

Picture a utilitarian who thinks there are certain truths which are "more useful" than others, and some which are "always useful". Those tenets of Mormonism which are "universally true" are "always useful" in any society (under other conditions)

So that gets you into the ballpark of what "universally true" means. An example would be "murdering children for fun is never right". In any society which values peace and life, (some of the "other conditions" I left out above) that will be true.

I picked that one because it is not at all nuanced and I wouldn't have to explain it further!

A society which did not believe that true would self-destruct. (life-affirmation is another absolute) Ultimately I think these assumptions and proceedures can be used to affirm all the principles of Mormonism believed to be "universally true". To me, it is the "most utilitarian" religion- after pages and pages of showing that.

Brief answer number two:

Read the secondary source quote above about Dummet's position above- post 192. I disagree that it is a "proof" but he is so close to what I believe that it would take longer to explain the differences than to just leave it at that. You cannot say that anything "exists" outside of experience- and 10 million people's experience is better than one guy seeing a pink elephant on the objectivity scale.

That's why I answered before saying God cannot be proven scientifically - scientific experiments are supposedly 100% replicable.

But this is really barking up the wrong tree- the issue is how important God is in your life- his significance in your life. THAT is what makes him "real".

We live our lives in the "subjective"- that is where everything important happens in life- discovering a new planet is not going to change anyone's life except the guy who does it- he will be able to now buy a new house and be famous. But what God does in our lives is where his "reality" is.

[MistahStokes]

The judgment, no?

How does the judgement provide universal justice.

[TAO]

How does the judgement provide universal justice.

Because you will receive the consequences of your actions. There is no such thing as justice without law, and so universal justice cannot exist without universal law (universal morals)

[MistahStokes]

Because you will receive the consequences of your actions. There is no such thing as justice without law, and so universal justice cannot exist without universal law (universal morals)

So you feel that only true justice can be obtained when there is something (or someone) there to punish those who break universal morals? Or is there more to justice than just punishment being handed out?

[TAO]

So you feel that only true justice can be obtained when there is something (or someone) there to punish those who break universal morals? Or is there more to justice than just punishment being handed out?

Punishment and Reward... in other words, people who are not held responsible (atheistic world) are free to do whatever they please, whenever they please, and not have to own up to it later.

Mind you, justice is only a reason to look for God, it doesn't mean there is one, it takes finding faith in order to discover the latter.

[cksalmon]

EDIT: Using my rangefinder, I'll click on a universal target following.

[MistahStokes]

Read the secondary source quote above about Dummet's position above- post 192. I disagree that it is a "proof" but he is so close to what I believe that it would take longer to explain the differences than to just leave it at that.

Really?!?!?

We might be led to suppose that perceptions had been successfully eliminated from our account of how the world is if we focus on abstract mathematical models used by scientists, but this is an error. Abstract mathematical models are a necessary part of science, but many such structures exist as models for mathematicians to study. We must be saying something further when we say of one such structure that it is not merely an object of mathematical study, but a true description of the way the world is. This