article root
Message was edited by: The Trivia Geek
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
That some of these images look just like objects discoverd in outer space. In fact the geometry used in these fractals have probabley been merged with astrophysics some where along the line.
There again it is no news that fractals mimic nature in many ways; hence the plant like imagery depicted here.
There again it is no news that fractals mimic nature in many ways; hence the plant like imagery depicted here.
I thought some of them looked like they were taken from the depths of the oceans...all the fractals were just beautiful.
Some of the fractals look like coral found on the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. No wonder, mathematics is considered the ultimate truth !
Looking at these fractals it's like take some very fast vacations to fantasy land. I couldn't help myself and for now one ot them is on my desktop, temporarly of course.
downloaded all for my linux sys.
set up to change randomly makes it seem
like a new machine at least others think so
all hail LINUX do what U want when U want
set up to change randomly makes it seem
like a new machine at least others think so
all hail LINUX do what U want when U want
- it's true, look it up.
Look around you: look how trees grow and their many branches, look at the sea shells, look inside your own body's labyrinth of systems and how they look, look at the atom, pretty much look at everything and see how fractals are used.
Fractals are everywhere and you are very observant to notice how fractal images generated by software programs have more than a passing resemblance to the varied formations in the cosmos, Math is in every design out there.
It's definitely an interesting subject.
Look around you: look how trees grow and their many branches, look at the sea shells, look inside your own body's labyrinth of systems and how they look, look at the atom, pretty much look at everything and see how fractals are used.
Fractals are everywhere and you are very observant to notice how fractal images generated by software programs have more than a passing resemblance to the varied formations in the cosmos, Math is in every design out there.
It's definitely an interesting subject.
Perhaps I should have picked my words more carefully. I meant the computer program that uses fractal geometry does an excellent job mimicking nature in an amazingly varied and in the case of mathmatics possibly an infinite way.
This was a repeat and there is no way I can find to remove double posts when the web site brain farts. If anyone know how please post. Thanks!
This is true too, look at all living things and you will see OOP in the genetic code. Look at eyes, for example. You will see the re-use of objects across species. Ears, noses, lungs, livers, kidneys, tongues, hair, teeth, it just goes on and on. On top of that, He made it self replicating and self sustaining. The Master Programmer definitely knew what He was doing.
And we call His hidden methods "Supernatural"...
Who has reverse engineered Gravity or Particle Attraction?
Who has reverse engineered Gravity or Particle Attraction?
It is now over a year and a half since you posed this question.
I see no answers.
I think it was the Preacher (King Solomon) who wrote, "God has placed Eternity (or, "the Universe") in our minds, yet in such a way that we are unable to discern its end from its beginning."
And this coming from an Oriental Potentate with a thousand wives 3000 years ago.
Who says the Ancients were "illiterate savages"?
Not me.
Donald L McDaniel
Chew on that 'un for a while, folks...
I see no answers.
I think it was the Preacher (King Solomon) who wrote, "God has placed Eternity (or, "the Universe") in our minds, yet in such a way that we are unable to discern its end from its beginning."
And this coming from an Oriental Potentate with a thousand wives 3000 years ago.
Who says the Ancients were "illiterate savages"?
Not me.
Donald L McDaniel
Chew on that 'un for a while, folks...
i dont see how that is relevant, other than your just saying we will never know, which is quite the buzzkill and never the right answer, not wrong, but most certainly not right
Funny enough, you've just described evidence of universal common descent (macroevolution, darwinism, etc.), though I doubt that was your aim.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html
If that's where you want to place your faith, then go ahead. I prefer the power of mine to the theory of yours.
...whether or not you are certain of anything that's actually real, the inner conviction that you are in the right sweeps away piddling considerations such as model-fidelity or testability.
We see this today, in the Bush Admin's oh-so-slowly crumbling conviction that Saddam had WMD's and was behind the 9/11 plot. No power of evidence could sway them from their sure knowlege it was so, until this many years had passed, and a plethora of books had debunked the myth.
Faith in "God" is the same kind of issue, only free from any danger of refutation, due to its adictive inner nature. No one will sway those who've abrogated their own powers of discrimination in favor of an ultimately cheap certainty concerning the Man Behind The Curtain.
We see this today, in the Bush Admin's oh-so-slowly crumbling conviction that Saddam had WMD's and was behind the 9/11 plot. No power of evidence could sway them from their sure knowlege it was so, until this many years had passed, and a plethora of books had debunked the myth.
Faith in "God" is the same kind of issue, only free from any danger of refutation, due to its adictive inner nature. No one will sway those who've abrogated their own powers of discrimination in favor of an ultimately cheap certainty concerning the Man Behind The Curtain.
Faith in anything, whether it be evolution, God, or the Democratic Party, should be based on experience and not dreams or wishes. If you have experienced good from the "Theory" of evolution then you should by all means place your faith there. Also, the same applies to God. If you only have a "Theory" about God and no real experience, then you can't possibly place your faith there. On the other hand, if you have had possitive, real experience with God, then any discussion trying to prove it is pointless. It's rather like trying to prove to a blind person that a rose is red. It's been said, and I believe it is so, that a person with an argument doesn't stand a chance against a person with an experience. I have spoken.
Lightning Joe stated dogmatically:
"Faith in "God" is the same kind of issue, only free from any danger of refutation, due to its adictive inner nature. No one will sway those who've abrogated their own powers of discrimination in favor of an ultimately cheap certainty concerning the Man Behind The Curtain."
I respectfully disagree, Lightning Joe. More and more of the Bible's history is being confirmed by archaeological digs. Whether I believe or not in some of the claims of some of the denominations out there is a different story.
There are documented instances where someone who was determined to disprove the Bible (Josh MacDowell being one) wound up becoming a believer instead.
I myself /know/ that miracles happen every day. Why? Without them, I would be long dead. Not everything will yield to being dissected or easily quantified. Even the doctors are puzzled as to why I'm still alive, yet here I am, over 20 years past my "expiration date". If that's not proof that there is a Creator and Divine Healer, then I fail to understand what would be.
"Faith in "God" is the same kind of issue, only free from any danger of refutation, due to its adictive inner nature. No one will sway those who've abrogated their own powers of discrimination in favor of an ultimately cheap certainty concerning the Man Behind The Curtain."
I respectfully disagree, Lightning Joe. More and more of the Bible's history is being confirmed by archaeological digs. Whether I believe or not in some of the claims of some of the denominations out there is a different story.
There are documented instances where someone who was determined to disprove the Bible (Josh MacDowell being one) wound up becoming a believer instead.
I myself /know/ that miracles happen every day. Why? Without them, I would be long dead. Not everything will yield to being dissected or easily quantified. Even the doctors are puzzled as to why I'm still alive, yet here I am, over 20 years past my "expiration date". If that's not proof that there is a Creator and Divine Healer, then I fail to understand what would be.
Good argument, Joe. Except, you are arguing from wrong premises.
1) True Christians do NOT have "certainty" about our Creator. We realize there is no way to "empiracly prove" His existence. Sure, a few have tried. But, in my opinion, they proved nothing, since their convictions were based on HOPE. Now, as St. Paul tells us, "We are saved in HOPE. But HOPE which is SEEN is NOT HOPE." That pretty much winds it up for me. "FAITH" is NOT "empiracal proof". It is an inward HOPE and in the Word of God, driven by a sense of the Presence of that God within themselves and around them. Paul tells us that Faith is a firm conviction, which is built up by EXPERIENCE of having our individual and corporate prayers answered continually for almost 2000 years.
Our faith is also a corporate thing, based on written traditions going back to the very time of the Events of the Gospel which have been collected by the Church, and which reflect the spiritual growth of the Church since its founding by Christ Himself down to this present day. The Church has a continual written history kept, since Christ Himself departed.
We have no reason to doubt these tradidions' veracity after 2000 years. They've been pretty-much exactly the same since then.
Faith in God has absolutely NOTHING to do with Mr. Bush's lying administration. How anyone can compare the two, I don't understand, since Mr. Bush has no Living Hope, without which true faith can ever exist. He based his entire period of rule here in the States on a LIE. PERIOD. I would NOT call his lack of wisdom "a mistake", I would call it a CRIME against Humanity.
The ones who are TRULY being deceived by Satan the MOST are those who claim to have CERTAINTY about God, HIs Plans, and their continued safe existence.
God have mercy on us, if we make the SAME political MISTAKE a third time here in the States.
And God have mercy on you, readers, if you continue to make the SAME mistakes that Satan does over and over and over, without ever learning the lessons the Father of the Universe is attempting to teach each of you.
NO, Joe, we who believe in God's existence have no "certainty" except the true knowledge that many (over 500 at one time, in fact) witnessed Christ's resurrection, and His departure, along with His promise to return for us, eventually. Added to this, we have the writings of many, many others who have born witness to His resurrection power since that time.
This is how "Power" is generated, friend. NOT by our "certainty", but by God Himself.
Even Christ Himself REFUSED to take any credit for HIS good deeds and powerful actions. He always gave the credit to His Father, from Whom He had been sent to this World for our redemption. WE can do no more than He did for YOUR redemption: WE can only point to HIM, and give Him the credit for any "certainty" we possess.
IF we have ANY "certainty" at all, it was certainly not "cheap", as you characterize it, since its price was beyond human payment: the Son of God's Crucifixion.
That "no one will sway those who've abrogated their own powers of discrimination in favor of an ultimately cheap certainty concerning the man behind the curtain.." is another of those "mischaracterizations" of Christianity you seem to love to toss at Christians in general.
First, we have NOT done any such thing. To become a Christian, one needs ALL the powers of discriminatian in his possession.
To REMAIN one requires supernatural discrimination, which can only come from the Presence of His Spirit within us, since men do not possess this power naturally.
Since the Curtain between men and God was TORN asunder when Christ proclaimed "It is finished! Receive My Spirit, Father..", there is no more "Man Behind the Curtain". WE see Him clearly for Who He is: The Eternal Son of the Father, Who is the ALWAYS-LIVING IMAGE of the Eternal, Infinite, and Invisible Father.
1) True Christians do NOT have "certainty" about our Creator. We realize there is no way to "empiracly prove" His existence. Sure, a few have tried. But, in my opinion, they proved nothing, since their convictions were based on HOPE. Now, as St. Paul tells us, "We are saved in HOPE. But HOPE which is SEEN is NOT HOPE." That pretty much winds it up for me. "FAITH" is NOT "empiracal proof". It is an inward HOPE and in the Word of God, driven by a sense of the Presence of that God within themselves and around them. Paul tells us that Faith is a firm conviction, which is built up by EXPERIENCE of having our individual and corporate prayers answered continually for almost 2000 years.
Our faith is also a corporate thing, based on written traditions going back to the very time of the Events of the Gospel which have been collected by the Church, and which reflect the spiritual growth of the Church since its founding by Christ Himself down to this present day. The Church has a continual written history kept, since Christ Himself departed.
We have no reason to doubt these tradidions' veracity after 2000 years. They've been pretty-much exactly the same since then.
Faith in God has absolutely NOTHING to do with Mr. Bush's lying administration. How anyone can compare the two, I don't understand, since Mr. Bush has no Living Hope, without which true faith can ever exist. He based his entire period of rule here in the States on a LIE. PERIOD. I would NOT call his lack of wisdom "a mistake", I would call it a CRIME against Humanity.
The ones who are TRULY being deceived by Satan the MOST are those who claim to have CERTAINTY about God, HIs Plans, and their continued safe existence.
God have mercy on us, if we make the SAME political MISTAKE a third time here in the States.
And God have mercy on you, readers, if you continue to make the SAME mistakes that Satan does over and over and over, without ever learning the lessons the Father of the Universe is attempting to teach each of you.
NO, Joe, we who believe in God's existence have no "certainty" except the true knowledge that many (over 500 at one time, in fact) witnessed Christ's resurrection, and His departure, along with His promise to return for us, eventually. Added to this, we have the writings of many, many others who have born witness to His resurrection power since that time.
This is how "Power" is generated, friend. NOT by our "certainty", but by God Himself.
Even Christ Himself REFUSED to take any credit for HIS good deeds and powerful actions. He always gave the credit to His Father, from Whom He had been sent to this World for our redemption. WE can do no more than He did for YOUR redemption: WE can only point to HIM, and give Him the credit for any "certainty" we possess.
IF we have ANY "certainty" at all, it was certainly not "cheap", as you characterize it, since its price was beyond human payment: the Son of God's Crucifixion.
That "no one will sway those who've abrogated their own powers of discrimination in favor of an ultimately cheap certainty concerning the man behind the curtain.." is another of those "mischaracterizations" of Christianity you seem to love to toss at Christians in general.
First, we have NOT done any such thing. To become a Christian, one needs ALL the powers of discriminatian in his possession.
To REMAIN one requires supernatural discrimination, which can only come from the Presence of His Spirit within us, since men do not possess this power naturally.
Since the Curtain between men and God was TORN asunder when Christ proclaimed "It is finished! Receive My Spirit, Father..", there is no more "Man Behind the Curtain". WE see Him clearly for Who He is: The Eternal Son of the Father, Who is the ALWAYS-LIVING IMAGE of the Eternal, Infinite, and Invisible Father.
You miss the mark re: Christianity.
"To become a Christian, one needs ALL the powers of discriminatian in his possession."
To become a Christian one need only admit one's sinful state, ask forgiveness from God, accept that Jesus is Who He says He is, that He died for our sin, and ask Jesus into one's life.
There is NOTHING that man has within himself that can make him a Christian.
To LIVE AS a Christian one needs ALL the powers of discrimination available to one via the Word of God and the Holy Spirit that indwells the Christian.
"True Christians do NOT have "certainty" about our Creator."
In fact, true Christians do have certainty about their creator. The experiential certainly that comes about from a faith in process of being fulfilled while still in this particular form of existence.
Power is not generated - it simply is. It is shared by the Father with whom He pleases and acquired by those with the willingness to walk in His way.
Lastly - you have no right to be so adamant about Christianity if you have no certainty.
edit the usual
"To become a Christian, one needs ALL the powers of discriminatian in his possession."
To become a Christian one need only admit one's sinful state, ask forgiveness from God, accept that Jesus is Who He says He is, that He died for our sin, and ask Jesus into one's life.
There is NOTHING that man has within himself that can make him a Christian.
To LIVE AS a Christian one needs ALL the powers of discrimination available to one via the Word of God and the Holy Spirit that indwells the Christian.
"True Christians do NOT have "certainty" about our Creator."
In fact, true Christians do have certainty about their creator. The experiential certainly that comes about from a faith in process of being fulfilled while still in this particular form of existence.
Power is not generated - it simply is. It is shared by the Father with whom He pleases and acquired by those with the willingness to walk in His way.
Lastly - you have no right to be so adamant about Christianity if you have no certainty.
edit the usual
There is incredible power in belief, whether or not the belief is founded in reality.
(oh, and look up the word "theory" so you can use it to support your argument next time)
(oh, and look up the word "theory" so you can use it to support your argument next time)
>There is incredible power in belief, whether >or not the belief is founded in reality.
Um... That's what I was saying...
>(oh, and look up the word "theory" so you can >use it to support your argument next time)
Sure don't get that, unless you are pointing out that my opinion is only my opinion. Knew that already.
Um... That's what I was saying...
>(oh, and look up the word "theory" so you can >use it to support your argument next time)
Sure don't get that, unless you are pointing out that my opinion is only my opinion. Knew that already.
... The theory of scientific evolution isnt about being descended from apes, only that the act of creation (It can be your God if you wish) set things in motion that allowed for organisms to develop and then, through a process using Hybrid Vigor called Selection, or natural selection, all life sprang forth and evolved into a myriad of forms, usually often parallel paths, implying that all life shared common ancestry- but long before the apes were about.
My Higher Power is powerful enough to have invented and used this method. How about yours?
My Higher Power is powerful enough to have invented and used this method. How about yours?
My God is powerful enough to do whatever he pleases within the realm he creates. What you describe is "Micro" evolution and I would subscribe to adaptation on that basis as certainly a reasonable hypothosis, but to stretch that to "Macro" evolution has no basis in fact - only theory - there are many "missing links" in the chain and many of those links are proportionately miraculous leaps. I see no reason to "believe" in it (or in more secular terms, to trust the theory of macro evolution) whether God could use it or not.
The term "god' refers to a superset of everything that is. That's why in the Western Bible, the name of God is unpronounceable, there are four letters but no vowels.
The letters are Yud, Hey, Vuv, and Hey. I don't have a Hebrew font to show the actual marks that represent the letters.
So is it Yaweh, as the Bible scholars call it? Is it Jehovah, as one religion seems to think it's pronounced?
For all we know it could be Yee-Hoo-Vee-Hoo! The point is that God is beyond comprehension, by definition. We are a subset of the Universe, which is a subset of "god".
So don't worry about it. Use whatever system works for you. Just don't insist other people use your system, it might not work for them.
The letters are Yud, Hey, Vuv, and Hey. I don't have a Hebrew font to show the actual marks that represent the letters.
So is it Yaweh, as the Bible scholars call it? Is it Jehovah, as one religion seems to think it's pronounced?
For all we know it could be Yee-Hoo-Vee-Hoo! The point is that God is beyond comprehension, by definition. We are a subset of the Universe, which is a subset of "god".
So don't worry about it. Use whatever system works for you. Just don't insist other people use your system, it might not work for them.
Don't relax just yet. "Superset" does not cast a wide enough net (and "wide" fails as well). "A" superset, or even Set of all sets, is worse, neverminding the Principia Mathematica of Russell and Whitehead, clobbered by Godel.
A set is bounded, necessarily so, as an artifact of comprehension. Another word for "boundary" is "definition," no more than a "this" in contradistinction to a "that." Do you attempt to comprehend God as bounded? You yourself say it can't be done in your fourth paragraph. Of course, this may be only coy of you. You do say that God is beyond comprehension "by definition." You're right if definition is the sole tool at hand. But you arrive at your point solely through an exercise in definition, i.e., set theory.
And, no. I can't be cool and just pick my nose. I do worry about the systems here and out there. I worry specially about the clash of bounded systems and particularly the car bombs.
A set is bounded, necessarily so, as an artifact of comprehension. Another word for "boundary" is "definition," no more than a "this" in contradistinction to a "that." Do you attempt to comprehend God as bounded? You yourself say it can't be done in your fourth paragraph. Of course, this may be only coy of you. You do say that God is beyond comprehension "by definition." You're right if definition is the sole tool at hand. But you arrive at your point solely through an exercise in definition, i.e., set theory.
And, no. I can't be cool and just pick my nose. I do worry about the systems here and out there. I worry specially about the clash of bounded systems and particularly the car bombs.
The pictures that started this discussion are generated by math. Numbers. You can get up on your box and say that your God made those numbers happen, but so what? It turns into the anthropic argument - that the universe is how we see it because we're here to see it; as opposed to being some other way, that would NOT produce beings that could observe it.
While true enough, this observation adds not a thing in the way of proof, or even material support, for the idea of a transcendental being that drives the whole thing. It's an adult version of the juvenile argument "because!"
By way of comparison, look at the supposedly discredited philosophy of solipsicm, which is the idea that everything, the universe and all its impressions and sensations, is just the lonely imaginings of one (1) inward-looking mind.
This philosophy is only "discredited" because its study is non-productive. In point of fact, it cannot, by its very nature, ever actually be disproven, any more than it can be proven. Any proofs or disproofs can be folded painlessly into its all-inclusive definition of itself.
You could listen to me, as a solipcist, prattle on about how the universe is a figment of my imagination; and say to yourself, "That can't be so, because I can think for myself, so I can't be a figment of this guy's mind." But of course your next sentence should be, "But what if he and his philosophy are just something that I imagined, and its MY mind that's imagining the universe?"
Well, you see the problem I'm sure, and its application to discussions of God, who supposedly killed off all the people in the world except Noah and his family, not to mention all the animals. (I have to wonder what the animals did to piss off God?)
While true enough, this observation adds not a thing in the way of proof, or even material support, for the idea of a transcendental being that drives the whole thing. It's an adult version of the juvenile argument "because!"
By way of comparison, look at the supposedly discredited philosophy of solipsicm, which is the idea that everything, the universe and all its impressions and sensations, is just the lonely imaginings of one (1) inward-looking mind.
This philosophy is only "discredited" because its study is non-productive. In point of fact, it cannot, by its very nature, ever actually be disproven, any more than it can be proven. Any proofs or disproofs can be folded painlessly into its all-inclusive definition of itself.
You could listen to me, as a solipcist, prattle on about how the universe is a figment of my imagination; and say to yourself, "That can't be so, because I can think for myself, so I can't be a figment of this guy's mind." But of course your next sentence should be, "But what if he and his philosophy are just something that I imagined, and its MY mind that's imagining the universe?"
Well, you see the problem I'm sure, and its application to discussions of God, who supposedly killed off all the people in the world except Noah and his family, not to mention all the animals. (I have to wonder what the animals did to piss off God?)
Lightning Joe had a good response. Well thought out and well put.
"While true enough, this observation adds not a thing in the way of proof, or even material support, for the idea of a transcendental being that drives the whole thing. It's an adult version of the juvenile argument "because!"
That is partly true lightning, in the sense that it is very difficult to say much more than "because". There are very few physical ways to prove a spiritual being and proof has to be imperical which is where this particular "Because" comes from. That's where the element of faith comes in (as discussed in other parts of this thread), but faith does not negate the possibility of fact, only fills in the gaps.
Personally I think there is enough imperical evidence to support the Christian perspective, but I can apprecaite how some may refuse to hold that understanding.
There have been many religions that believed in Gods who would unjustifiably "beat up" one another, but in Christian Theology, these are generally referred to as demons, and not the powerful God who is loving AND just, who created everything and therefore has the right to make or destroy as he pleases... perhaps in a sence, we are only an inward reflection of his thoughts - The bible uses the term "breath" - as in he breathed life into us.
How do you explain the infinite with finite words? That's the dilemma. What is real? That is the question. What does it mean for my future? That's the crisis.
Life is a walk of faith... it's been interesting following the threads here and seeing the different walks.
"While true enough, this observation adds not a thing in the way of proof, or even material support, for the idea of a transcendental being that drives the whole thing. It's an adult version of the juvenile argument "because!"
That is partly true lightning, in the sense that it is very difficult to say much more than "because". There are very few physical ways to prove a spiritual being and proof has to be imperical which is where this particular "Because" comes from. That's where the element of faith comes in (as discussed in other parts of this thread), but faith does not negate the possibility of fact, only fills in the gaps.
Personally I think there is enough imperical evidence to support the Christian perspective, but I can apprecaite how some may refuse to hold that understanding.
There have been many religions that believed in Gods who would unjustifiably "beat up" one another, but in Christian Theology, these are generally referred to as demons, and not the powerful God who is loving AND just, who created everything and therefore has the right to make or destroy as he pleases... perhaps in a sence, we are only an inward reflection of his thoughts - The bible uses the term "breath" - as in he breathed life into us.
How do you explain the infinite with finite words? That's the dilemma. What is real? That is the question. What does it mean for my future? That's the crisis.
Life is a walk of faith... it's been interesting following the threads here and seeing the different walks.
How can God be all powerful to a level that you, me, anyone can never comprehend, but then immeadiatly put limitations on that all powerfulness by refusing to see that evolution can very well fit into the IMO very narrow view of creationalism, who are you to say the 7th day or 6th etc is over? Who are you to say that we as we are as people is his final evolution of man, who are you to say that we now currently as "man" are in his vision, and not still evolving into his vision?
It never ceases to amaze me the ability of religous "zealots" to be so close minded about ideas contrary to their beliefs, stating that they for a fact know the mind and history of God based on circular truths, proof of God existing is that God exists is not a proof per se unless you believe the assumption (which I do).
If God is all knowing and all powerful, how can you(anyone) claim to know anything for a fact about what we are and where we came from, other than thru science (methodology approach to unraveling the mysteries around us) and why can science Not but the will of God and viewed as a special revelation (another one of your proofs of God?)
It never ceases to amaze me the ability of religous "zealots" to be so close minded about ideas contrary to their beliefs, stating that they for a fact know the mind and history of God based on circular truths, proof of God existing is that God exists is not a proof per se unless you believe the assumption (which I do).
If God is all knowing and all powerful, how can you(anyone) claim to know anything for a fact about what we are and where we came from, other than thru science (methodology approach to unraveling the mysteries around us) and why can science Not but the will of God and viewed as a special revelation (another one of your proofs of God?)
Darwinism and macroevolution are theories. Only God can make it really happen. Not one of us can make even a single atom or molecule of whatever without using HIS ingredients.
The problem with the simplistic surrender of ascribing the beautiful and seemingly intelligent "designed" order is that those who say "God did it" usually imply that "He" was the Christian God of the current past few centuries that "did it". This absolutely narrow, anthropomorphic, and culturally self-centric view of any, if any, Creative Intelligence as being THE creator of everything is what is at fault. It is unscientific and biased to give the latest version of Yahweh the trump card in arguments having to do with ultimates.
The FSM has created the world and all we know in HER noodly embrace.
Personally I subscribe to the Judeo Christian God, but I think to say there is no creator just because one person subscribes to those beliefs is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Whoever God is, he/she created the world... next step... who is God? Can any scientist say, "Yes, there must be a God" and then say "but I don't care about who they are..." Aren't they in the least bit curious? Isn't curiosity the basis for all scientific investigation? Investigate religion - it is the science of discovering God! Different religions have different hypothoses, so which one would you subscribe to?
How about the statistical odds that a book written 400-1500 years previously would tell us where the birth place of our Savior would be, that He would be born in the city of Bethlehem (bread of life) and would also come out of Egypt (went there to escape Harrod), and would be called a Nazarine (was trained as a carpenter and lived his youth there). Along with about another 170 prophesies that make His birth at least "by design". That Savior played the ultimate "trump card" by defeating death and Satan.
I fear the narrower view is to believe that one God couldn't do all of this. He would have to be a lot more capable than a group of gods.
I fear the narrower view is to believe that one God couldn't do all of this. He would have to be a lot more capable than a group of gods.
"Definition," while useful and necessary, is alone insufficient in the service of broaching the Ultimate, aka, God. So also are all the other tired shibboleths mounted one against another in these remarks and counter remarks, i.e., "truth" and "faith" and "science" and "proof" and so on.
Break from the herd and try "infinition" as well. Don't look it up. It's not there. Same way "fractal" wasn't there until, breaking from the herd, that happy soul began playing with exponentiation.
Break from the herd and try "infinition" as well. Don't look it up. It's not there. Same way "fractal" wasn't there until, breaking from the herd, that happy soul began playing with exponentiation.
To not be a theory, there needs to be a body of evidence. A theory is a conjecture with limited basis in fact.
There is solid evidence for Gravity. There are only limited facts that point to macro evolution... the rest is conjecture. Evolution is therefore a theory. Gravity is a fact.
There is solid evidence for Gravity. There are only limited facts that point to macro evolution... the rest is conjecture. Evolution is therefore a theory. Gravity is a fact.
Gravity is not a theory. It is a proven law of nature. Evolution (as defined by Darwin) was refuted /willingly/ by Darwin himself after his book was published.
Want interesting reading? Check this site (and look up "hydroplate theory" on Google)
Want interesting reading? Check this site (and look up "hydroplate theory" on Google)
Gravity is a directly observed and measured phenomenon. It is the various explanations of how gravity works that are theoretical.
Last time I did any reading on the subject, no one had been able to detect and measure Gravitons.
The problem I have with Science vs. Religion arguments is that it is really an Apples vs. Oranges kind of thing.
Science attempts to explain the ?how? of things. Religion attempts to explain the ?why? of things.
Last time I did any reading on the subject, no one had been able to detect and measure Gravitons.
The problem I have with Science vs. Religion arguments is that it is really an Apples vs. Oranges kind of thing.
Science attempts to explain the ?how? of things. Religion attempts to explain the ?why? of things.
CubeSlave responded that the purpose of religion was to explain the "why"... while I believe that is true to some extent, I think to say that it doesn't explain the "how" and that science doesn't attempt to explain the "why" is not entirely true.
If we are grounded in reality - as we all should be, then faith cannot claim the things it does unless it can also "jive" with reality - if it does not then it is a fantasy, not faith. Similarly, if science gives us a how that raises the question "why" then it cannot be ignored... often the "why" preceeds the "how" - as in, why do fractals appear much like leaves or other natural occurrances - then you go on to do the Math and explain "how".
The world is interwoven by design. It is created in such a pattern that we can discover its properties. Asking one question and leaving out the other four (of the famous 5 W's) is irresponsible and neive.
If we are grounded in reality - as we all should be, then faith cannot claim the things it does unless it can also "jive" with reality - if it does not then it is a fantasy, not faith. Similarly, if science gives us a how that raises the question "why" then it cannot be ignored... often the "why" preceeds the "how" - as in, why do fractals appear much like leaves or other natural occurrances - then you go on to do the Math and explain "how".
The world is interwoven by design. It is created in such a pattern that we can discover its properties. Asking one question and leaving out the other four (of the famous 5 W's) is irresponsible and neive.
In science, a theory is a working model that we can use to explain what we see. That's as good as it gets.
Gravity is a theory, because it explains what the Universe looks like to us. It was set out by Newton, and refined by Einstein, but we don't pretend that we have the whole picture. We still need to make it work with quantum theory. String theory is a step in the right direction, but we're still looking!
Evolution is a theory, because it explains what we see around us, and even can be used to make predictions (white moth/black moth incident in England). It's as good as we can get.
Religion is not meant to explain the mechanics of the world, it's meant to explain the ethics of the world. They're two different fields.
Gravity is a theory, because it explains what the Universe looks like to us. It was set out by Newton, and refined by Einstein, but we don't pretend that we have the whole picture. We still need to make it work with quantum theory. String theory is a step in the right direction, but we're still looking!
Evolution is a theory, because it explains what we see around us, and even can be used to make predictions (white moth/black moth incident in England). It's as good as we can get.
Religion is not meant to explain the mechanics of the world, it's meant to explain the ethics of the world. They're two different fields.
Hmmm... saying religion is not about explaining the mechanical world is like saying a surgeon is not about the incision. The surgeon is so much more, but without the surgeon, there is no incision to begin with!
Religion may help us understand things and therefore provide a basis for an ethical foundation to build on, but it also explains a lot of things that we can build a physical understanding on.
Thinking that Religion and Science are two different things - diametrically opposed? - does no justice to either. If they don't jive in the end then one of them is a farce (religion getting the short stick in our western culture in the same way science did in the middle ages). I prefer to see how they complement and extend each other.
Fractals may not be the "way" god created the universe - they may have only been the system that he used to design it... we're only now beginning to understand that.
Religion may help us understand things and therefore provide a basis for an ethical foundation to build on, but it also explains a lot of things that we can build a physical understanding on.
Thinking that Religion and Science are two different things - diametrically opposed? - does no justice to either. If they don't jive in the end then one of them is a farce (religion getting the short stick in our western culture in the same way science did in the middle ages). I prefer to see how they complement and extend each other.
Fractals may not be the "way" god created the universe - they may have only been the system that he used to design it... we're only now beginning to understand that.
Since you seem to be reframing God as the Great Mathematician, I'll just point out that there is no need for an authoring mathematician, in order to "create" mathematics.
The relations between forces and numbers exist; regardless of whether anyone at all studies them.
Next, you will say that the universe itself must exist, in order for mathematics to exist. Wrong - for the same reason.
Number and force relations will exist as potential even in an abstract "empty" reality. Given any form of matter or energy, these maths will emerge "spontaneously" only because SOMETHING will determine the interactions. That something, at bottom, is physical forces that act according to definable laws (maths).
The relations between forces and numbers exist; regardless of whether anyone at all studies them.
Next, you will say that the universe itself must exist, in order for mathematics to exist. Wrong - for the same reason.
Number and force relations will exist as potential even in an abstract "empty" reality. Given any form of matter or energy, these maths will emerge "spontaneously" only because SOMETHING will determine the interactions. That something, at bottom, is physical forces that act according to definable laws (maths).
Who, or what defines the laws? Where do they come from? Why do they exist? "I think, therefore I am", but what makes me think? and why?
You say "Next, you will say that the universe itself must exist, in order for mathematics to exist. Wrong - for the same reason".
But then you contradict yourself by saying that "these maths will emerge "spontaneously" only because SOMETHING will determine the interactions. That something, at bottom, is physical forces that act according to definable laws (maths)".
Before the Big Bang, when there was no universe, there were no physical laws - these were created in the seconds after the big bang itself. Who knows - there could be other universes with different physical (and therefore mathematical) laws.
Therefore, maths does not necessarily exist in an 'abstract empty reality'.
But then you contradict yourself by saying that "these maths will emerge "spontaneously" only because SOMETHING will determine the interactions. That something, at bottom, is physical forces that act according to definable laws (maths)".
Before the Big Bang, when there was no universe, there were no physical laws - these were created in the seconds after the big bang itself. Who knows - there could be other universes with different physical (and therefore mathematical) laws.
Therefore, maths does not necessarily exist in an 'abstract empty reality'.
Since "nothingness" is not observable, I wonder if forces and hence mathematical principles will exist. The presence of the observer will defeat the order of "nothingness". Leads me to believe that there needs to be an existence - however abstract, for math to exist.
That is a grand statement but there are some amazing, miraculous and elegant theories which address your comment. May I suggest checking out Kauffmans autocatalytic set theory. Secrets of the Old One.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
