God's Fingerprint On Creation Found!

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

I think the problem why people deny a creator is they get creation mixed up with religion. They can and should be separate topics.
1) Learn to accept a creator exists. (Very hard for some people)
2) Then learn what he wants from you. (A challenge with so many idea's & philosophies)

People 'deny' a creator because it doesn't appeal to their logic or thinking. A distaste for religions is a separate matter. Thanks for the imperatives, but I'll pass.

That you believe in a creator appeals to your way of thinking. Seeing and seeking confirmation of this belief are two sides to the same page. Fibonacci points you to God. Fibonacci points others at the mathematical means of describing the world around us.

reply to post by broahes


I think people call you idio ... ignorant for believing without reason that a God must exist despite the lack of...well, common sense.

I don't say anything is impossible but it's extremely unlikely, yet i'm guessing you don't even consider the possibility of there NOT being a "God".

I can see why you've been called ignorant before.

reply to post by FritosBBQTwist


Organized religion of man did not create the universe, or this planet, they just came up with a bunch of theories, and almost all of them are wrong.
That's why evolution was developed, it lends itself to the deist* way of thinking, and compensates for the errors of the creation narrative that accurate scientific data could never support.


*

Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Many Deists reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations. These views contrast with the dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other theistic teachings. Deists typically reject most supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and tend to assert that God (or "The Supreme Architect") has a plan for the universe that is not altered either by God intervening in the affairs of human life or by suspending the natural laws of the universe. What organized religions see as divine revelation and holy books, most deists see as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources.

I suspect we have many more Deists posting on ATS, than the average board.

I have seen the Golden Square, Golden Angle, Golden Ratios, Fibonacci spirals occurring in nature which is indeed interesting and significant but how do you "connect the dots" between something that occurs in nature with Intelligent Design or God? I am not saying that it does or does not, but just asking how you derive that. I can definitely see the correlation between math and nature. Humans are the only species I am aware of, that use time and math to measure or attempt to "prove" anything at all... and we are only 1 species of millions on this planet. Where is the math that draws a correlation between God/creator and nature?

Originally posted by FAQAmerica
reply to post by broahes

 

I think people call you idio ... ignorant for believing without reason that a God must exist despite the lack of...well, common sense.

I don't say anything is impossible but it's extremely unlikely, yet i'm guessing you don't even consider the possibility of there NOT being a "God".

I can see why you've been called ignorant before.

You can assume all you want about me.. if you will read any post that I have ever made in reference to God on ATS, my belief in a God is no different than your belief in no God.. it is based in doubt.

I am very much attracted to the reasoning behind no belief in God.. but would never consider labeling myself an atheist.. for the thought of being drawn into a group of condescending assholes, such as yourself, that at the end of the day knows exactly what I know, which is nothing.. is not appealing at all.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by broahes]

reply to post by broahes


I know exactly what your saying about Atheists, just like there are radical members of all religions there are radical atheists and moderate one ones too.

Radicals from any group can only inflame the discussion.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Yes, I hope that any atheist that reads my previous comment will realize that I was only talking about a portion of them.. certainly not all of them.. as I have run across far more radical Christians here in the south that are far more inflammatory and unwilling to talk about something vs pulling shots out of the air to prove something that isn't even on the table for discussion.

Peace to my Atheist brothers and sisters.

Edit to say:

Sorry to sidetrack the thread..

The OP is interesting enough to stay on topic, sorry about that.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by broahes]

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


What a lovely thread for a Sunday. It made me all cheerful, thanks!

People who are not inclined to deism seem to take offense when God is linked to such mystery as Fibonacci numbers, golden ratio and others. I must confess I am one of those who are not comfortable with the word God. With that being said, it must be admitted that there must be an intelligence behind them. Man discovered and not invent them. As for the op, saying this is a blue print of God, is stretching it a bit. Its almost like saying God needs a blue print like scientists to produce things. But who knows it might just be the case. An example is the human being. God or whatever must have conceptualized a skeleton before putting flesh on it.

That's beautiful. Thanks for sharing. It reminds me a lot of what I was trying to express in this thread here www.abovetopsecret.com... which was called "God is an artist"


SnF

Originally posted by pro-all
God or whatever must have conceptualized a skeleton before putting flesh on it.

The whatever is nature, and skeletons, bones, etc occur not only in humans but the majority of species that we know of. I happen to believe in God, but I also believe in nature and science. Just because one cannot offer mathematical proof of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


I've seen it before...and it doesn't impress me at all...there are many mathematical structures like that built into nature...you could say they are all a fingerprint of God...or you could also say evolution found those structures to be highly efficient, and therefor, it is commonly utilized. Waves obviously have this mathematical property, but other natural phenomena have mathematical properties far more mind boggling. It can all be rationally and logically explained when it comes down to it.

Having said all that, I still believe there's an extremely high chance some sort of super consciousness exists. Just given the mere complexity of the universe, and reality it's self. It's sort of like trying to say there aren't other intelligent beings in our universe. If intelligent life can form out the elements on one planet (us on Earth), then I think it's almost a given that some sort of super-consciousness will develop out of the elements of the universe.

Given that we all came from one singularity, I do believe the universe is one big interconnected web of energy...and therefor, why can't it be one big brain? A complex neural network that achieves mind blowing computational and cognitive processing power...the actual universe could be the mind of God...therefor God is everything and everyone...and we are each a small part of "God"...

[edit on 16/5/10 by CHA0S]

Let's see. The natural order follows certain mathematical formulas, therefore there's a god?

That sure is preposterous.

I could say that not all natural processes follow the same mathematical formula, therefore there is no god.

Religious people get weirder every day

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Religious people get weirder every day

Belief in God is not one in the same as being religious.

I just wanted to point that out, because, while I believe in a God, I do not believe in any religion. You (being atheist, I assume, forgive me if I'm wrong) base your belief in no god, the exact same way I base my belief in God.. through doubt.

Originally posted by broahes

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Religious people get weirder every day

Belief in God is not one in the same as being religious.

I just wanted to point that out, because, while I believe in a God, I do not believe in any religion. You (being atheist, I assume, forgive me if I'm wrong) base your belief in no god, the exact same way I base my belief in God.. through doubt.

True enough. I could have said "theists and deists" but I had a feeling people would glean the meaning of my statement

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Cheers..

I respect you if for nothing more than that holy set you have there.. very nice, and a star for that.


Peace.

Food for thought indeed!

*munch*munch*

It sounds right though, a creator always likes to be recognised in some small way. It is wierd how galaxies and flowers share a 100% identical trait. Measurable, definable, everything science is supposed to like.

Re-inforces the fractal universe concepts too!

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Let's see. The natural order follows certain mathematical formulas, therefore there's a god?

That sure is preposterous.

I could say that not all natural processes follow the same mathematical formula, therefore there is no god.

Religious people get weirder every day

It's not necessary to be religious to have a belief in a prime mover. Mathematical formulas found in nature point to something which has been engineered. Look at the math that goes into architecture. More specifically look at the math that goes into the construction of a high quality music recording studio. The math trail is gigantic and points to the fact that an extraordinary amount of thought went into its creation.

The math relates to a base 9 number system...




Plenty of material in here:

www.myspace.com...

You'll find information inside those blogs (view all).

As additional reference (youtube or google search terms):



Dale Pond - Keely, SVP
Marko Rodin - (look for a 44pt Lecture Series) Vortex Math Model
Nassim Haramein - Vector Based Geometry

I don't see how this proves anything.