It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did ‘God’ create math… or….did ‘Math’ make god?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker


1) If normally, random, inherent data-distribution is the foundation of evolution as stated by the above proponents…and the central limit theorem fits in the entire universe….meaning samples must fall within (approximate) the population…and the whole universe is made up of the same substances to nullify sample size….then why aren’t EARTH-TYPE planets prevalent?


a) who says they aren't? Half the planets in our solar system are rocky planets (more if you count the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.)
b) Just because we don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.
c) I don't think the "random, inherent data-distribution" is the foundation of evolution since elements are not all created equal (some are more reactive than others)


2) If system variability follows a predictable pattern….and evolution is a system…why isn’t transitional life more observable? Like 94% of the time?

Not to be rude... but... "because you don't know what to look for." We see it all around us. Back 120 million years ago, you would not have seen therapods as being in transition to birds... but they were making the transition. We humans are in the process of transitioning to something else -- we're far different from Australopithecus and Homo Erectus... and they were in the process of transitioning to us. However, you can't predict a future based on the past because of the uncontrollable number of variables, including cultures.


3) Why do evolutionists hold to the role of normally distributed-data and deny the central limit theorem….meaning, if nature did it only once it … it is not COMMON, and therefore must be assignable/special/God-breathed/Jesus-stuff? Does the math add up?

Because (although I'm familiar with those theorems), you aren't actually using any of the common tools used by scientists in studying evolution. Math won't add up. Take the Galton Experiment -- it had identically sized balls dropped past identically sized openings and bouncing against identically sized pegs. If you wanted to simulate evolution, then it'd be millions of different sized balls and thousands of different sized openings and pegs and many of the pegs would cause the balls to explode while some openings would cause balls to stick together or change color or turn into fluids or teleport them to the other side of the game board. Each ball, each peg, each hole, each gap would be unique. A ball passing through a hole would change the hole, a peg hit by a ball would change the peg and the ball.

THEN you'd have a model of evolution.


4) Doesn’t the biblical premise of Jesus’ ‘omni-present’ characteristic makes sense with him being the supposed “missing matter”

Uh... no? Jesus is not presented in the Bible as omnipresent.


What’s missing in Quantum Physics?


A ***REALLY*** good way of explaining it to people who don't understand differential geometry and partial differential equations (among other things.)


Quotes from Discovery Magazine in 2000, “The weirdness comes from the gluons. Quantum chromo dynamics, the force that holds protons together, is modeled closely on quantum electrodynamics, the force that holds atoms together—but the gluons change screening to anti-screening, intuitive to bizarre.”


Dramatic Science Writing at its finest. If the writer had simply said "Quantum chromdynamics is modeled closely on quantum electrodynamics with the following changes noted", the editor who received the piece for the magazine would have turned it down as "not interesting to our audience."

I've sold some science articles to popular magazines. You have to have a "hook." It has to have appeal and drama. And it has to be shallow enough for everyone to understand.


In fact, if you follow the evolution to infinitely short distances, the triggering charge goes to zero. If you really study the equations, it gets almost mystical."

What's "mystical" to the average person and "mystical" to physicists and mathematicians are actually different things. The Riemann hypothesis is not mystical to any ordinary person, but it can be to the mathematician.




posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
No doubt about it, God is a mathematician and it is how he has ordered the universes.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Tony4211
 

Hear, hear! I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, I think the ATS authorities have decided O&C is a snakepit and are just leaving it to fester. Either that, or they have decided its present form is more popular with members. Which, I am sorry to say, it probably is.

*


reply to post by OldThinker
 


If randomly distributed samples, “approximate” the make-up of the population, then does the observed “design” prove a “designer”?

No, it suggests the exact opposite. It suggests that whatever the preceding events, matter is more likely of its own accord to assume certain configurations than others. Your argument is built on a false foundation. Just like every other argument purpoting to prove the existence – or, for that matter, the nonexistence – of God.


edit on 4/12/11 by Astyanax because: one has to be fair, even to creationists.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I would say neither occurred.

Is there another option?



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Interesting post. Some of it's beyond me, but some of it I am somewhat familiar with.

I don't know where to start.

I know a little bit about the power law curve and the bell curve. They fit different natural distributions, like: height, weather events, terrorism, and so on. Essentially, we can say something about how certain things unfold in the universe. I've heard that the universe is fundamentally information represented by frequencies. Changes in frequency over time result in patterns. These patterns make up our reality. Some of them we understand mathematically, and some we don't. Knowing the patterns can help us make better choices in where we invest.

I wish I knew hte math better than I do.

We may never be able to predict the future beyond a certain point because of quantum strangeness. I've heard that from a couple places. I think ti's worth bringing up.

That would mean that cause/effect breaks down. Prevents perfect predictions.
edit on 4-12-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
reply to post by OldThinker[/i
......


4) Doesn’t the biblical premise of Jesus’ ‘omni-present’ characteristic makes sense with him being the supposed “missing matter”

Uh... no? Jesus is not presented in the Bible as omnipresent.
==================


Hey Byrd, thx for reply....

We can get into the science stuff when I have some time....

but regarding jesus' omni-presence, i think the scriptures present him that way....


"Omnipresence. That God is omnipresent is the clear teaching of Scripture (Deut 4:39; Ps 139:7-10; Prov 15:3; Isa 66:1; Jer 23:24; Acts 17:27). It is evident that Christ possessed the same attribute. His promises of abiding with His disciples forever (Matt 28:20), and His promise to indwell the believer (John 14:18, 20, 23) are impossible of any literal fullfillment unless Christ is also omnipresent. The experience of Nathaniel (John 1:48) would imply that Christ was spiritually omnipresent even during His life on earth. If the disputed passage of John 3:13, “which is in heaven,” be admitted as genuine, it would be explicit statement of this doctrine. Inasmuch as the deity of Christ can be sustained on other grounds, it would follow that Christ as God has the same omnipresence which is described so clearly in Psalm 139:7-10. Whether in heaven or hell or in the uttermost parts of the sea, Christ is there."

Source: bible.org...



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


And there is more hear....

"The divine attributes of the Son of God present a clear revelation that in Him “dwells the whole fullness of deity bodily” (R.S.V., Col 2:9). Every attribute of importance which can be attributed to the Father or the Holy Spirit can be attributed to Christ. The testimony of the Scriptures on this point has been so clear that since the Council of Nicea in 325 when the deity of Christ was stated as the doctrine of the church and of the Scriptures there has been no denial of the deity of Christ which did not also deny the infallibility of the Scriptures. In other words, it has been generally conceded that the literal interpretation of Scripture gives a firm basis for the deity of Christ.

It is the purpose of this discussion to present briefly the testimony of the Scriptures concerning the divine attributes of Christ. It will be assumed that the deity of Christ in His preincarnate state was the same as in His incarnate state. Hence, for the revelation of His divine attributes we may appeal to any Scripture in the Old or New Testament which may apply. The arguments of the kenotic theologians to the point that Christ surrendered some of His divine attributes in the incarnation will be discussed and refuted in its proper place. It is held here that His deity is constant from eternity to eternity, with the same divine attributes.

There is unusual significance to most of the divine attributes. Their individual character is such that if it be proved that Christ possessed certain divine attributes it necessarily follows that He possessed all devine attributes. Hence if Christ is omniscient He must be also omnipotent. If He is infinite, He must be also omnipresent. If He is eternal, He must be self-existent. The evidence is, however, complete and does not need to rest on this rational argument.

Eternity and pre-existence. As previously shown, Christ is declared by the Scriptures to be eternal (Mic 5:2; John 8:58; Col 1:16-17; Rev 1:11). All the passages on His pre-existence are sustaining evidence for His eternity. If Christ is eternal, it almost necessarily follows that He is God.


Quote source: bible.org...



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tony4211
I have one for you. Who gives a $hit? I am tired of getting on here, hoping to learn something new about evolution and being let down by this meaningless crap..


Hey I'll ask it again which part about common cause data is meaningless crap?

So you know about data and its place in evolution already, please enlighten me, drive-by-poster...



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Interesting post. Some of it's beyond me,



Yes, i hear you...this is a difficult concept and subject, glad you stopped by



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Here's an entire dissertation on the omni-presence of Christ...

72.32.3.66...



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix
I would say neither occurred.

Is there another option?


Data would suggest only two options...one on purpose (assignable) or one by common, inherent causes...if the latter we should SEE it everywhere, it shd be the Norm, (it wouldn;t be worth debating cause all we SEE, but why don't we? hmm?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by Gigatronix
I would say neither occurred.

Is there another option?


Data would suggest only two options...one on purpose (assignable) or one by common, inherent causes...if the latter we should SEE it everywhere, it shd be the Norm, (it wouldn;t be worth debating cause all we SEE, but why don't we? hmm?
The question is did god make math or did math make god, in my view there is no god, so there is nothing for math to "make". I accept the world as it is on the basis of the physical laws and properties, if anyone wants to believe that it was purposely created thats fine, but personally I dont see any evidence to suggest that.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 
Hi G, thx for the reply...May I ask? ...is your disbelief based on the supposed "lack of evidence" for God or from some negative interactions with "believers"??



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 
Not so much a lack of evidence(although that is a factor), as I simply don't see a need for a god in order for the universe/reality/existence whatever to occur. It could just be the natural order of things, no divine architect required.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
By proving that the sacred geometries of certain religions are isomorphic, despite their origin being separated by thousands of miles and years, it has now been revealed in some measure what the mathematical nature of God is. The amazing and beautiful, mathematical connections between religions and science has been made public for the first time. Visit this website
smphillips.8m.com...
and spend months studying the wealth of material available there that reveals the mathematical meaning of the Kabbalistic Names of God and how they prescribe the nature of physical and superphysical reality. See wonders of geometrical design that relate ancient sacred geometries to current research discoveries in superstring theory. Discover how your skeleton is geometrically encoded in the sacred geometries of Tantric Hinduism (Sri Yantra), the Kabbalistic Tree of Life (Otz Chiim) and their polyhedral counterparts. Learn how a universal mathematical pattern governs human DNA, the seven musical scales and superstring physics, how this was intimated by Plato in his cosmological treatise Timaeus and the key role the Pythagorean tetractys plays as the "Rosetta Stone" for deciphering information about the holistic nature of man and matter.

God did not create mathematics, nor did mathematics make God. Cast aside such childish anthropomorphisms. As the ancient Pythagoreans taught, you can discover through mathematics (or, rather, a certain form of it) God's transcendental nature and immanence in the physical cosmos. This website helps you to achieve this if you are willing to make the effort to master its challenging research material and to learn how to understand God's mathematical archetypes and principles.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
I don't know...

Therefore..

God!



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
I don't know...

Therefore..

God!


So, not attributable, just "common" time and chance did it?

hm?

T



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join