Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mathematics, common sense and the origin of man.

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Bleeeeep
reply to post by bastion
 


It's wave-particle duality and symmetry is a product of fractals - it occurs when a form causes another form to split in its path.

No you don't even have a single answer to what I asked you; yet for some reason, you want to tell me my answers are wrong? If my answers are wrong then you obviously have some answers that are "right". What are they?

If you are adamant, show me some math that says God is an impossibility. How about some mathematical models for evolution, modeled after the fact of witnessing something, and purely designed to coincide with what you are witnessing. A model that explains how evolution occurred before thought. Obviously you must have one because desire is an emotional trait and a desire to survive must be the after effect of something that already had a long life span if it had the ability to desire survival. Or was it just random meaning you have no clue but you still think that my guess is wrong. Why?
edit on 9/27/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)


*Sigh*

Particle-wave duality is about how matter and photons have both the properties of particles and waves - see here: jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk... - it has absolutely nothing to do with the Holy Spirit or anything you're claiming it does.

Your answers are wrong as they have no basis and are entirely circular. You're saying life must will itself to exist with no proof or evidence this is the case, you say randomness doesn't exist - which is plain false unless you're a determinist and considering you're trying to invoke quantum phys which is all about the breakdown of probability waves you're contradicting yourself. The rest of it is such drivel I can't even construct an argument against it as they're just random scientific terminologies bundled together that means nothing.

You don't have to have the right answer to disprove another's, especially when it's riddled with error, contradiction and woo. This is basic logic. i.e solve: (15 x 4) + 3
The answerer falsely claims 15 x 4 = 12, the marker sees this mistake so knows they've provided the wrong answer without having to find the right one.

In Maths and Science these are known as assumptions and axioms. If initial assumptions or axioms are false then the resultant answer is false. Or in plainspeak, garbage in = garbage out.

Your guess is wrong because your initial assumptions are wrong, your understanding of particle-wave duality is wrong, you have invoked god, the holy spirit and other stuff with no proof they exist. Hence your resultant answer is very, very wrong indeed.

As for mathematical models of evolution see here: pespmc1.vub.ac.be...

I'm only trying to point out you're talking out your arse and forcing ignorance on yourself - If you want to learn I'm happy to point you in the direction of some good texts, but if you want to remain deluded please don't waste my time by pretending you have an understanding of Science.

edit on 27-9-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-9-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   


show me some math that says God is an impossibility


Prove to us that purple unicorns don't exist, and I'll use your method..



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 


I used the terms as they exist and I expanded upon them. Just because you do not understand does not make it garbage.

All things that exist, exhibit traits of the Trinity - that's what an axiom is:

father: order/concept/rules set/imager
spirit: motion/will/ability/energy
son: form/structure/body/existence/image

I think therefor I am.
I think = imager
therefore = ability
I am = existence

The trinity is the only truth we have, and it exists in everything that exists. If you remove one part of the trinity, the thing ceases to exist.

Moreover, you are just looking at images and are believing the image defines the will/function/motion/energy/imager/creator/order, but they do not, if they did we would know things like why there exists life or anything at all - but we do not know why.

We can only say, "well this is what the image of life does so we guess life exists because of what it does". But that is erroneous thinking on our behalf - life and all forms are only images that are created for what? and why? and how? That's what you seem to know, so answer it already.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
 


Purple unicorn does exist. "Nothing" can't exist, so by your utterance of the words purple unicorns you have imaged it, given it ability, and form. The words exist until you remove any of the 3 things: imager, ability, and form.

If all imagers of it were deleted, or its ability or will to be created was deleted, or all forms that can create the form were deleted, then it wouldn't exist.

It's the Trinity - read the bible.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


No an axiom is a self evident statement: en.wikipedia.org... , it absolutely has nothing to do with what you claim it does.

Keep digging and enjoy China.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Bleeeeep
If you are adamant, show me some math that says God is an impossibility.

If the bible is true and the word of God – and you believe in it – then everything in it must be fact. Is that correct? Do you believe in creation as depicted in Genesis? How old do you think the Earth is?

I love your personal faith in the bible, but sometimes even you must question it, you must say to yourself "Actually, this is simple man's idea of creation as it is abundantly clear that life didn't start this way". Do you? Or is your faith absolutely blind? Blind to evidence you can see and touch?

Or is it that bible scholars keep respinning the words to interpret modern science over and over again, often using the same passages to interpret different things and selling it to gullible people who desperately NEED to believe in something bigger than them. Please tell me you do see this? You MUST see this – everybody else does which is why there is very little credibility given to you.

How does God explain mitachondria, for example?



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 



All things that exist, exhibit traits of the Trinity - that's what an axiom is:

father: order/concept/rules set/imager
spirit: motion/will/ability/energy
son: form/structure/body/existence/image

I think therefor I am.
I think = imager
therefore = ability
I am = existence




ax·i·om

1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: "It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with goods and services" (Albert Jay Nock).
2. An established rule, principle, or law.
3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

axiom [ˈæksɪəm]

1. (Mathematics) a generally accepted proposition or principle, sanctioned by experience; maxim
2. a universally established principle or law that is not a necessary truth the axioms of politics
3. (Philosophy / Logic) a self-evident statement
4. (Philosophy / Logic) (Mathematics) Logic maths a statement or formula that is stipulated to be true for the purpose of a chain of reasoning: the foundation of a formal deductive system Compare assumption [4]


LINK

An axiom has nothing to do with the Trinity...or any trinity.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
The mathematics is pretty clear.

On one hand, the odds against us happening -- that a lump of inanimate matter would somehow develop a point of view and consciousness -- is extremely high. We still don't know exactly how it happened, and only have some vague theories about it. The odds are so high that life on Earth could very easily be a cosmic fluke never repeated anywhere else.

On the other hand, the universe is big and old and constantly churning matter and energy into new patterns. There are so many things happening in the universe that it seems inevitable that life would appear somewhere.

So on one end of the spectrum, our existence is impossible. On the other, it's inevitable. Put those things together, and you have a coin flip. Heads, life, tails, no life. In our case, it came up heads.

However, I also tend to think that without us looking at it, the universe wouldn't exist in any meaningful way. So when the last bacteria on Earth dies out, and nothing else lives in the universe, the whole thing will just wink out of existence. I figure that's what will happen when I die. Everything will vanish from my point of view, and that's the only one that matters.

What we're talking about is multi-dimensionality, including dimensions of consciousness and point of view. And that doesn't really have anything to do with mathematics.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   

TerraLiga
If the bible is true and the word of God – and you believe in it – then everything in it must be fact. Is that correct?

A lot is direct truth and a lot of it is parables with a truth for a lesson. Like the story of the little boy who cried wolf would be a parable to teach you not to pretend you're in danger, or extremely burdened - it is not meant to say there was an actual boy and he actually cried wolf.


Do you believe in creation as depicted in Genesis? How old do you think the Earth is?

I do believe the story of Genesis to be direct truth. However, how old something is, is relative to the person or thing experiencing it. To God, our universe's time at that moment would be considered day 1 of the universe and it probably went through some evolution and changes, and then on day 2 he changed something again and it too probably went through evolution and changed more, etc. But from our perspective, or modern sciences perspective, it could be equivalent to something like 15.3 billion years - not that our solar system is 15.3 billion years, but in our frame of reference it would be something like that.

Instead of thinking of it like you are, a more proper way of looking at time is the unfolding of time or the evolution of time. The measurement of time is done between the motion of two objects but that's just a measurement and not meant to be considered absolute time.


I love your personal faith in the bible, but sometimes even you must question it, you must say to yourself "Actually, this is simple man's idea of creation as it is abundantly clear that life didn't start this way". Do you? Or is your faith absolutely blind? Blind to evidence you can see and touch?

All you can have is faith. And faith is a Good good good good thing - faith is the most powerful thing, we as humans, have.

Faith gives you mind over matter by enabling your will, thus allowing you to:
heal the sick (placebo effect)
move your body
help you become who you want to be
understand others
end arguments, questions, and doubt,
enjoy good
And on
And on

If you had no faith in man, his measurements would do nothing for you. If you had no faith in your friends or lovers you would never have happiness together. It is with faith in others, and yourself, that you are even able to have understanding of something. And I believe it is because of our lack of faith, that we must evolve and learn to be faithful, because nothing is going to be 100% factual except the trinity - all else is faith.

...

To answer your question, though, I think those ancient men you address understood God in terms they understood, but no less of a understanding than we have today. I mean, they walked with God. It would be to our err to believe they didn't understand what was real, or to believe we have a better understanding of God and reality than than they did. Sure, we understand the images he creates in a different way because we want to exploit them for progress towards self-obsoletion, but our more detailed understanding of the images might not be a good thing. Just look at how the work force is nowadays - we can already create self-sustainability, but we keep pushing forward with no purpose beyond greed. It will only be our downfall to increase knowledge without directly proportionate increments of faith and understanding. e.g Look at the mess Japan has caused with those reactors.



Or is it that bible scholars keep respinning the words to interpret modern science over and over again, often using the same passages to interpret different things and selling it to gullible people who desperately NEED to believe in something bigger than them. Please tell me you do see this? You MUST see this – everybody else does which is why there is very little credibility given to you.

This one you're half right on. There are some very bad religions and "religious" people out there who exploit others' faith in God for bad purposes. But on the other hand, we of little faith, in large part, are just as limited to the understandings of reality as the less faithful (because God puts a veil over our eyes so that we cannot have understandings without faith.) However, the way you are inferring it is as if all advancements in understanding belong to the faithless - you are trying to make yourself feel good by reaffirming atheism is good, but no, advancements in understanding do not make good atheists, it makes good faithful people. It is the faith in your measurements or faith in something that is giving understanding - it isn't because you are an atheist or not.



How does God explain mitachondria, for example?

This I don't know. I have never tried to study the bible to see if God mentions cellular anything, but I get the point you are trying to make about new discoveries being tied into religion; and it isn't a problem of the faithful or the faithless, and it is certainty no fault of God - it is just a reaction of the faithful who would like to better understand scripture with more modern understandings. The offense is made only because you empower understandings which are potentially made by those you identify with. You want to feel good by reaffirming that atheist equals good and theist equals bad so you are again good. It's concept reproduction - just try to have faith and you'll begin to understand your emotional urge to find fault within someone all the time.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 

"I think therefore I am" is meant to express that we can't really know anything except the fact that we exist because we think.

What I did was showed that that expression is a three part understanding of thinker, will, and structure.

And that 3 part understanding is within everything. It is the only thing we can really know for sure. The images we see and measure could be turtles in another reality watching teenage mutant ninja humans and there is no way to know anything beyond thinker, will, structure, or trinity, or "I think, therefore, I am."

It is the only axiom we really have. I thought people knew this - guess not.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Thanks for the time you took to answer my questions, I appreciate it.

However, as a point of semantics, I wasn't referring to 'faith' as a religious word, more as an absolute belief and trust in something. Although I'm not religious I have an abundance of faith – in science (which I love), in logic, in discovery and in just being close to the natural processes that happen on and around this planet every second of the day.

I question everything and I find answers to as many of those questions as possible – I think it's human and healthy to do that, but certainly not to the point of paranoia! But I also think that is exactly how religion came to be; by man's questions of what he saw around him every day, and his attempts to answer those questions the best way he was able at that time.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 





On one hand, the odds against us happening -- that a lump of inanimate matter would somehow develop a point of view and consciousness -- is extremely high. We still don't know exactly how it happened, and only have some vague theories about it. The odds are so high that life on Earth could very easily be a cosmic fluke never repeated anywhere else.


Great post! The way I understand it is that the odds of a universe forming that could support life are what mathematicians would call a mathematical impossibility, not that the chance isn't there but it is so ludicrously infinitesimal that it's hard to comprehend. With that said, I have seen some drivel trying to be passed off as math to support claims by those who believe in a Creator.

What are the real mathematical odds and if they are insanely astronomical how much do they actually matter in terms of support for either side of the argument? Those are questions that are hard to answer and I have seen epic debates where people spend hours quoting external math and lecture pages linking supporting figures for both sides. For me, the fact we are here is proof enough that it could happen because it did and then the only question is, by what means.

At some point, despite points made on a factual basis from both sides, it honestly in my mind always breaks down into a philosophical debate and I think that is because at this stage, human knowledge is not at the point of being able to produce absolute answers to these questions, the data is incomplete and too much is still unknown.

While I believe in God, or a creator if you like, I don't claim to know the origin of that God, nor the purpose by which we were created in his image. I do believe in a creator being responsible for humankind and I do believe that creator is the entity we refer to as God but is God responsible for creating the entire universe? If there is alien life in the universe outside of Earth is he also responsible for that? I don't know, God could be the person in charge in a group of omnipotent space faring beings who seeded our planet or he could be the person who typed in our code sitting at a glowing keyboard. These are questions I can't answer, the data is incomplete.

Oddly, I think we have a better chance at understanding God through science. The more we learn about our universe and ourselves, the better idea we can shape about why it is here and why we are here in it.

If you would like to view some mathematical numbers that I think are fair about the likelihood of evolution, read this page, it's interesting. Read here
edit on 27-9-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TerraLiga
 


The faith that is mentioned in the bible, and the faith you use each time you take a step, not doubting that you will plant foot firmly on earth, is the same faith. The only difference in walking on ground and walking on water is the amount of faith you need. You probably mean faith in God? That he is who he says he is and that he will do what he says he will?

Questioning things is okay but don't go overboard with lack of faith.
A good parable for you:Matthew 10: 16-17
16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;


Paranoia is when you fear your thoughts - it will drive you insane and make you schizophrenic or worse. But that is not where religion comes from - not paranoia. Religion is from the way our minds work. We are concept reproducers, and as such, we desire to produce a concept for anything we become aware of. If we find that things are similar, we will group them together because that is how you form a concept of something - based on comparing and contrasting. Well, if something happens that you cannot explain but you notice a pattern about it, you will become superstitious - and that is where most religions come from, besides the religions begot from God and fallen angels, and the worship of things you empower.
edit on 9/27/2013 by Bleeeeep because: added a bit to the end



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
As soon as God is mentioned then the science gets thrown away.

Logically either evolution or some other force created all the animals. If we go down the first option, then science tell us that evolution would mean animals would become more complex through time. Geology science backs this up with simpler animals (fossils) in lower layers meaning simpler animals are older. Geology could crush this theory by finding a complex animal from an earl age - but this has never been found. So I would class thus as evidence. If we believe evolution then we are missing positive factors in the calculation, which is highly likely as we only know life that we have discovered.

If we believe that another force (lets call God ) created everything then we need mathematics around this, what are the chances of one God, what are the likelihood of God creating life once and in one place?



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Helious
Great post! The way I understand it is that the odds of a universe forming that could support life are what mathematicians would call a mathematical impossibility, not that the chance isn't there but it is so ludicrously infinitesimal that it's hard to comprehend. With that said, I have seen some drivel trying to be passed off as math to support claims by those who believe in a Creator.


The complete opposite is true under M Theory/Multiverse.

Chances are there's an infinite number of Universes out there, which makes an infinitesimal event a certainty: www.math.columbia.edu...

ICR isn't respected at all in the Scientific community - For example the article you link to fails to mention Earth isn't the only planet in the entire Universe, if they did then their calculations wouldn't be impressive/make evolution look doubtful in the least.

If you want objective, well respected studies, you're best looking to IOP and similar: ioppublishing.org...
edit on 27-9-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-9-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   

bastion

Helious
Great post! The way I understand it is that the odds of a universe forming that could support life are what mathematicians would call a mathematical impossibility, not that the chance isn't there but it is so ludicrously infinitesimal that it's hard to comprehend. With that said, I have seen some drivel trying to be passed off as math to support claims by those who believe in a Creator.


The complete opposite is true under M Theory/Multiverse.

Chances are there's an infinite number of Universes out there, which makes an infinitesimal event a certainty: www.math.columbia.edu...


You are quite correct and I'm versed in the theory. It's intriguing to say the very least. I would also agree that if this theory turns out to be correct then this universe and it's possibility would be a mathematical certainty.

This kind of highlights why it can be so difficult to form and maintain complete ideas and opinions regarding our origins. There are some key fundamental issues that we currently lack complete data for leaving us ill equipped to state definitive conclusions about our convictions.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 





ICR isn't respected at all in the Scientific community - For example the article you link to fails to mention Earth isn't the only planet in the entire Universe, if they did then their calculations wouldn't be impressive/make evolution look doubtful in the least.


In all fairness, ICR isn't respected in the Scientific community because it disagrees with their mainstream theory and status quo. Multiple PHDs collaborate on data put forth there. The scientific community is legendary for persecuting those that do not accept long held ideas, ironically, just like the church.

And as far as the planet argument you make, some would say that until there is definitive proof of life outside of earth, it is moot, the Drake equation notwithstanding of course.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Yeah - and there's also the strange effect that if it does turn out to be true then every religion is true as there'd would be at least one configuration in the infinite number of Universes that matches each religious deity. Assuming it comes under true infinity and not a very large number -verse.

I did produce a conjecture a few years back that indicated it'd also mean they're false but it all got far too confusing to interpret any of the findings.
-----
ICR wise, it's more that they rely on kooks and scientists who've long been discredited such as Dr. Gish (who is mentioned in that article) who doesn't even know the Law of Entropy (or rather deliberately excludes the 'in a closed system' part) and most of his/their research is based on a (deliberately?) flawed understanding of very basic Science.

While it's true papers that don't fit in with 'accepted' science receive more scrutiny (I know first hand myself as I wrote one on fractal feedback and its applications) it's always a welcome thing to be questioned about your work (unless you're a kook) and the ideas are accepted if an exceptional proof is given (as is required).

If the claims made in ICR were true then almost all known Science would be wrong. As this is clearly not the case, they're not highly regarded (why would any scientist write for a 'journal' with such a poor record?) so can safely be dismissed unless they offer cast iron proof of something spectacular.

In the meantime they're more interested in people wanting to prove the Bible to be true, rather than being Scientists.
edit on 27-9-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   

bastion
Yeah - and there's also the strange effect that if it does turn out to be true then every religion is true as there'd would be at least one configuration in the infinite number of Universes that matches each religious deity. Assuming it comes under true infinity and not a very large number -verse.

Err... no... - it just means you're all wrong, as the rest of humanity expected. You f#cking morons.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I think we should question the lack of imagination that makes it so hard to understand how genetic drift becomes evolution. Or how the universe is infinite, and therefore really good at throwing together every possible combination. LIkely countless times over.





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join