Mathematics and a lot of other real solutions to to things aren’t conceptual nor are they material. They belong to a third group that is neither conceptual or material. Without human minds mathematics does still exist and work. Even if nobody knows a good mathematical proof that pi is normal, it still either is or isn’t independent of conceptualization. The idea that two plus two equals four is predicated on human minds is simply wrong. It is neither a material truth nor contingent on conceptualization, it’s a transcendent. The claim you are making is that since it isn’t material or conceptual it somehow is indicative of a real and existing God, for no reason in particular.

I’m suggesting such a third transcendental option even as a strict materialist. Solution and limitations of design space or mathematics or logic are neither material nor conceptual and none of that implies even remotely that God exists to explain it. It’s a rather silly and naive notion that suggesting a logical or scientific gap is suggesting that God exists. Such gods are composed entirely out of ignorance and shouldn’t be given any consideration at all. Transcendental truths just happen to exist, even if I couldn’t explain them that doesn’t imply they are magical god evidence.

It seems like you are unaware of the contradiction between your two claims. You first say that immaterial entities aren’t produced by matter, then later say that conceptualization is a product of evolution. So are immaterial things like concepts ultimately produced by matter or not? You seem to want to have it both ways.

“Mathematics isn’t conceptual. It isn’t that we have an idea of pi and therefore pi exists.”

What you mean is that mathematics, or pi specifically, has a direct connection to the real physical world and is not ONLY conceptual. But though mathematics mat be used to describe things about, say, a tree, I have never heard of a tree upon which mathematics grew. The point being, you are trying to suggest that simply because mathematics has a connection to the physical world that it is therefore not truly conceptual. Yet without the human mind, without conceptualization, mathematics, for all practical purposes, doesn’t exist. I’m not suggesting that math isn’t “real”, only that it has no physical existence, which is something the materialist cannot account for. As I have said before, the fact that it is immaterial and yet has direct application to the material world is what should give the materialist cause to question his assumptions about the nature of the world in which we live.
You are obviously a very intelligent person and you seem to see all the parts before you. However, you seem to have trouble putting them together. I want you to know that I harbor no ill will on account of our disagreement and desire nothing but the best for you. I truly hope that one day you will come to know the truth that God is there, and that He is not silent and that we are indeed accountable to Him.

Mathematics isn’t conceptual. It isn’t that we have an idea of pi and therefore pi exists. The ratio of the circumference of a circle to it’s diameter really is 3.14159265358979… — It is actual and real. It however, isn’t physically real or conceptually real.

“How can a material world produce immaterial entities?”

It can’t and doesn’t. Math isn’t produced by matter. Math is properly employed in ways to coherently describe matter, must as various possible incoherent mathematics systems aren’t.

“Can you account for our ability to conceptualize anything, physical or not?”

Yes, our ability to conceptualize evolved.

It seems as though you don’t understand my point. I’m not suggesting that logic is actually absurd or that we should in actuality distrust it. What I am suggesting is that the naturalistic position cannot account for it. And of course the “why” of intelligence is the issue. If someone says, “I’m going to account for our existence without citing a supernatural cause for it”, why is that person exempt from having to explain the tools that he uses to do the explaining? This is exactly the issue.

“I’m not sure how logic reduces the reliability of anything.”

I never said that logic reduces the reliability of anything. The point Lewis was making was that if our minds are simply the product of mindless processes, and logic exists only in the mind, having no absolute or independent existence, then we have no reason to trust it. That is, we have no reason to believe that this thing that developed by chance in our minds is actually able rightly asses to the nature of the universe. I, however, do trust it because I do not believe that it is the product of a mindless process. The fact that we both live in a universe that is comprehensible and have the ability to comprehend it is not a fact that should be lightly cast aside. Indeed, the very statement that the universe is comprehensible would be meaningless if not for the fact that there exist beings to comprehend its comprehensibility. Or, perhaps more to the point, the statement would never be made at all.

“Also, as you later point out we must start with some assumptions so why can’t we assume logic without the need to “account for its existence?””

Partly, I meant to point to the fact that we cannot begin on entirely neutral or objective ground as many like to think they can. We cannot start from scratch. The reason the materialist cannot just assume logic is because he has employed himself in the business of accounting for things. Why is he then exempt from accounting for the tools that he uses to do the accounting? Mustn’t logic then be the product of naturalistic processes? If he believes that is true then does logic not then require an explanation?

What it boils down to is that Logic does indeed exist, and that one worldview accounts for it while the other doesn’t. But don’t misunderstand me, I’m not suggesting that only those who believe in God are able to use logic, only that, when they use it, they are being consistent with their worldview, whereas the materialist, when he uses logic, is not.

“You say that all a materialist has to work with is material, but it’s unfair to define someone so narrowly and then apply the strictest definition of that constraint to further your argument, especially when, in fact, the question IS NOT the validity of abstraction or “what kind of universe” in which we live.”

I’m not entirely certain what you mean by “applying the strictest definition to further your argument”, but, on the whole, it sounds like you are suggesting that it is unfair for me to actually consider a materialist to be a materialist. Someone who wishes to use anything other than material to explain any part of our existence would not, to my mind, be a materialist. What defines someone as a materialist is that they believe that all they have to work with is material,No? And I’m not talking about the validity of abstraction as a whole, only its validity when built on the foundation of Materialism. Also, the kind of universe that we live in is the question. If you aren’t interested in it, that’s fine. But that is ultimately the question that I am dealing with.

“Science is not about truth, whereas religion is”

Science is not about truth? I’m guessing that you must define truth differently than I do. What is true is that which corresponds to reality. If science doesn’t deal with that which corresponds to reality then what use is it? Of course science deals with truth. That is the value that it has. The scientific method is a wonderful tool for investigating and describing the world in which we live. If scientists cease to be interested in what is true then the science they do ceases to be valuable. But I’m guessing that you mean something very different when you refer to “truth”. As far as Biblical Christianity goes, you are right to say that it is about truth. It is indeed about that which corresponds to reality. It is about what kind of a universe we live in. And there is no natural or necessary wall between science and religion. The Bible tells us foundationally what kind of a universe we live in, and we use science to discover the details, to understand the physical world more completely. It is part of the “dominion mandate” that God gave man in the very beginning.

So, ultimately, we do live in a universe that is comprehensible and we do have the ability to comprehend it. And those facts are accounted for by an intelligent creator, not by mindless matter.

First let me observe the irony of you refuting a scientific theory by attacking its basis in logic while at the same time yourself using logic!

“…interpreted based upon the assumption that similarites, both in physical structure and genetic makeup,prove that we are related.” Relation is a subjective term, chosen for brevity in favor of a needlessly precise technical definition of what it means to be genetically related. If you have a problem with the use of certain terms used in the layman’s discussion of scientific theory perhaps you would be more at home disecting the technical details of actual scientific papers.

“It also first assumes that evolution has indeed taken place without first trying to prove it.” Unless my history is misinformed, Darwin did not presuppose evolution while he built his theory. The fact that any contemporary discussion about the theory of evolution comes with an existing knowledge of the theory does not detract from the theory, or the legitimacy of one’s accpetance of the theory when entering a discussion about it.

“It first asserts that logic and reason and, of course, the scientific metod, must be used if we are to come to right conclusions about ourselves and the world in which we live.” It’s not my impression that the goal of science is to come to the “right conclusions” about anything–only to gain greater understanding through an empirical method for the improvement of the human condition. And if we are not to use logic, reason, and the scientific method to make sense of our world what then should we use? Blind faith and arrogance, such as was used to justify the suppression of literacy, theories of a flat Earth, and the Earth-centric universe? An eloquent quote from a fiction author does nothing to dispel the usefulness of logic.

“…while at the same time undercutting its reliability…can’t even begin to account for its existance, let alone demand that it be used as the only grounds for scientific inquiry.” I’m not sure how logic reduces the reliability of anything. Could you explain? Also, as you later point out we must start with some assumptions so why can’t we assume logic without the need to “account for its existence?” By definition it would be unscientific to use an illogical approach to science.

In answer to your two ending questions in post 34 I answer this: human intelligence. The “why” of intelligence is not the issue here, so I find it to be a more than adequate answer to how we can conceptualize. As Merdolo pointed out, it is irrelevant to explain how or why we are able to use logic. However you care to explain intelligence is irrelevant to its usage.

You say that all a materialist has to work with is material, but it’s unfair to define someone so narrowly and then apply the strictest definition of that constraint to further your argument, especially when, in fact, the question IS NOT the validity of abstraction or “what kind of universe” in which we live. Rather, to me it seems that the issue for many people here is the validity of the theory of evolution, and you could also include the theory of gravity, the theory of plate tectonics, or the theory of special relativity for that matter. All of these are essentially the same, insofar that none of them are absolute truth, and to me that’s the underlying issue. Religious people tend to ignore the fact that theory is not truth, but it’s an important distinction. Science is not about truth, whereas religion is, so it’s unfortunate that so many people miss this point and try to inject religion into science.

You continue to dodge the question. I’m beginning to think you have not yet understood the question at all.

You are absolutely right though if you mean that mathematics has profound application in the real world, or that it deals with things to be found in the world of matter and energy. There is no obection to the fact that in addition to 7 being conceptual that we can indeed have 7 apples in the physical world. But you are still entirely missing the point. How is it that a material world ,by pure dumb luck it would seem, not only came itself to be uniform in its own operation, but managed as well by the same blind chance to produce within you and I an ordered and uniform means for understanding that ordered material world?
It also matters little whether there do exist conceptual things that are strongly bound to the physical world like much of mathematics is. The fact remains that there are a great many things that are not, and that exist entirely in the abstract. Can awesomeness be measured? Can one have more awesomeness or less awesomeness? No it has an entirely abstract existence.
Now, if you return to post again I would appreciate it if would would attempt to answer my question: How can a material world produce immaterial entities? Can you account for our ability to conceptualize anything, physical or not?