The title is incredibly confusing and I will allow pro to call for a draw if he thinks the way I am arguing is not what he desired.
--Again, thanks for bearing with me. I have posted and engaged in less than 10 debates like this. Ever. Also, ill defer to your decision on leaving this to a vote or draw upon completion. Hopefully the number of rounds will allow for a term setting and argument forming round. Ill gladly take a dock in points for my fault at the wasted time and space.
In any case, pro says he thinks that no worldview has a foundation that can be proved. However, there are certain concepts that can be proved, the most famous being mathematics. Indeed, Scientific American has an article where someone argued that the universe's structure comes from Mathematics itself, rather than "God" or lack of a God! As https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-universe-made-of-math-excerpt/
In summary, there are two key points to take away: The External Reality Hypothesis implies that a “theory of everything” (a complete description of our external physical reality) has no baggage, and something that has a complete baggage-free description is precisely a mathematical structure. Taken together, this implies the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, i.e., that the external physical reality described by the theory of everything is a mathematical structure. So the bottom line is that if you believe in an external reality independent of humans, then you must also believe that our physical reality is a mathematical structure. Everything in our world is purely mathematical – including you.
--Regardless of how our discussion goes, this is super interesting and I'd not come across it so formally laid out. Even in my undergrad mathematics days (finished with an applied math degree after 4 years of physics). Although man discussions around this in our math lounge haha.
Although we have yet to gather enough evidence about the universe's atoms and matter enough to truly gain undeniable proof that the universe is based on mathematics,
-- the crux of my point. I think conversations about the origins of the universe would be way more productive if both sides admitted we're looking at the same evidence and, at the most fundamental level, there's some amount of a, call it, leap of faith which must happen. I equally think the Christian who thinks they could prove God and the proponent of a self contained universe (one with no supernatural, no outside dimensions other than those accounted for within the laws of our universe) who thinks modern sciences current knowledge is sufficient to call a non-theistic view proven are wrong. I think we will forever have to come to a point that we can define the rift where it simply must be opinion. Granted, opinion based on non-opinion based evidence.
here we see an innovative and riveting idea that can actually be proved on solid grounds --
-- I totally agree. But I think we can formulate a lot of ideas of how we could prove something like this, but will always get stuck by some unpassable barrier. I acknowledge this is conjecture and I very well may be wrong.
even if mathematics is a human foundation, the basic ideas are consistent and shown within universe's foundation (such as speed of light's limit, gravity's formula, so on and so forth). I hope pro understands this.
-- i do, but I've come to see the beauty that is in mathematics and the reason why it works so amazingly well as our insight into (please let me know if you catch my meaning here) the language God wrote the universe in so to speak. For me, the further fine-tuning of the universe and seeming fractal levels to creation (the same laws/rules running at different levels of reality) further support this. Again, conjecture but it's all consistent to me for what you'd expect to see if you started with what's laid out in the Bible and then hypothesized what you'd expect to see in nature.
In a way, the Math Universe Hypothesis is a little bit similar to atheists who strongly rely on science. They use the formulas and ideas to establish a basis of proof, without leaps of logic in faith.
-- I dont see it as leaps of logic in faith as a different conclusion to the same evidence pointing to an ultimately unprovable question. Both sides must take some leap. I mean physics is actually a great example. If the speed of light is not constant, a ton is either flat out wrong or needs heavy revisions. It's essentially one of the many, known to be theory but assumed as law, things in Physics. Otherwise, you wouldn't ever be able to justify any study into anything. We know the assumption works in all the cases we've tried and we've uncovered loads riding on that. But we're still making a leap of faith (but a highly knowledge based, logically thought out one). There's no doubt in my mind science would celebrate a discovery showing that to be wrong. There's been a few super interesting theories already. But that doesn't mean it's still not a unproved assumption. Nor does that prove it's not true either to be clear. What if the speed of light is changing so incredibly slowly that you need to look on the scales of millions or billions of years to see a tiny change? Modern science has no hope of detection outside a theoretical breakthrough from a modern genius akin to those who have made startling discoveries which led to where we are now. It's just so disenguous to me when either side stands on a platform of I'm 100% sure, proven, without a doubt, nothing could ever possibly happen to tweak, edit, or invalidate my position. And I see it all the time. Whether assumed in the subtext of arguments or outright pushed.
I think we need to get comfortable, once we find that line, to say you're up and I'm down (I was going to say left/right, but shuttered at the potential political play on terms and ran). We can't be sure, we both are confident, and currently do not have enough evidence to consider changing our minds. Perhaps that's the point where we seek to find common ground. Or talk about which tv show you're most into right now hahaha. Otherwise it just seems to always become a showdown of talking points or sub-point nit-picking. My general observations after watching hundreds of hours of discussions and debates on these topics.
As we repeatedly perform countless calculations, we already assume our establishments of 1,2,3,4 numbers. As such, this is not merely "faith" but rather goes beyond it. It is our knowledge that we gain.
--I agree and if i were speaking with a Christian where we both assumed the same worldview. I would argue (not that you would take the opposing position if Christian, I just know many, many Christians who disagree) that it's well within God's plan for us, while on Earth without Christ (and probably after, but that's a WHOLE different conversation) to do science and uncover some specifics of the majesty of His creation. Furthermore, to take the knowledge and use it to build a society where we can best take care of the ones who need it most.