God's Fingerprint On Creation Found!

Originally posted by Parallex

After watching this video, it's hard to believe that someone of faith couldn't come up with a better argument for intelligent design. Yes, that's what you are propounding here - intelligent design. And we ALL know where that takes us...
As usual, you provide NO evidence for the God claim. You take a scientific phenomenon, and ascribe that its' very presence must mean that God made it. Yes, if that's true, god caused me to fart loudly in disgust 30 seconds into that video.
Come up with a better argument, and try again. FAIL.
Parallex.

I always find it amusing that/when people demand proof......

Proof the noun being: 'evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.'

Define evidence?
Define sufficient?

Everyone has their standards for accepting or rejecting evidence, even amongst Athiests, who like vegans have a range stemming from veg lite to veg full on..or mild veg/seafood veg...variations..diversity of opinion...diversity of maturity and experience. Everyone has their limits..each is entitled to their choice of belief....and most take up that right and responsibility to have it or not, without feeling the need to discount or berate the investigations or beliefs of others.

That is called remaining scientificly sagacious....being openminded..remaining willing to examine whatever truth presents in a non judgmental fashion, open to exploration and confrontation with ego's dogma.....discovery rather than dictatorship of the mind and the minds of others.

Obviously this writer has already decided what is and isnt true for himself - he appears to believe that he isnt God, and that there IS a God...and holds a belief that God is the creator of the universe and he has decided this for himself and for him, this vid simply produced a greater depth of belief in that truth...it *is* for him, evidence as he see's it, of his understanding of God and Gods creative fingerprint. He is neither wrong or right...at least he is searching for the truth and nothing he has said can be prooved...only discounted or berated based on YOUR view of what God is or isnt...which again, cant be prooved either outside of your mind.

I too believe there is a God..and yes I supose I believe that that God is intelligent and very creative and yes, I hold that God developed or created the 'base code' of all life in the universe. The only truth I know for certain is that I know I didnt..I am reasonably sure you didnt..so for me God is simply, that which created 'all this'.

I do not ascribe to the theory of intelligent design however, which is a human theory, derived from the minds of men, who no doubt have agendas of power ego et al etc..things that I dont feel have anything to do with the journey of the discovery of God and Gods means and ways of expressing creativity....a choice...and could God have used base mathematics? Why not!
Could the numbers represent a divine order or directive? Why not? It's my journey and my discovery within Truth.

Given that you would demand it of this person...are you as equally prepared to proove to him, to me or to any readers interested, the non existance of God?
If you cannot produce sufficient evidence for the non existance of God and do so in emperical scientific terms..may I berate belittle and condem your views you as soundly as you have this persons?


I loved this...

"The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired"

Funny that this quote was written by Stephen Hawking....acclaimed athiest....who at least had enough nouse and balls to know when to quit playing God and to ask the question...if not God - What?


So how about it...proove for us the non existance of God?
I dare you


Ro

Originally posted by Ismail

Originally posted by Raud
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

/oldest discussion in the world - yaaaaawn

Not really, no. Discussion has only been an option for some of us for a few centuries, in most parts of the world, it is still impossible. Because believers like you used to and still do, burn and stone heretics and non-believers. So no. Not really the "oldest discussion in the world". But it's nice of you to think so, and appear so blasé about it...

Oh, sorry for using a little tongue-in-cheek there, I was afraid someone wouldn't get it!
If I would have written "We've heard this discussion a million times before" would you have corrected me on that one too?

Originally posted by Ismail
I find it somewhat ironic, however, that believers, after millenaries of oppression and brutality, find themselves using maths, the tool of the scientist (or sorceror as you liked to call them back in the middle ages), to try and validate the existence of the divine... Believers never needed proof before. Isn't blind unquestioning faith cutting it anymore ?

Uh-ooh!
It is the "unbelievers" who needs proof! That is why this discussion occured in the first place! If there is a God of facepalms, I'd like pay homeage to it now.

Originally posted by Ismail
Science and maths cannot proove the existence of the imaginary. If you understood maths and science, instead of quoting them, as you quote your holy book, based on someones interpretation of a mathematical coincidence (there are lots of those by the way), then you wouldn't be here telling us that a few random numerals should make us wake up and open our eyes to the reality of a creator and intelligent design.
[edit on 17-5-2010 by Ismail]

"Your holy book"?
Even though the vid in the OP might lean towards Christianity is some way, it is not outspoken directly. Me myself is most certainly not Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or any of that, still I subscribe fully to the fact that there is a divine power of some sort that might be refered to as "God".

And calling the Fibonacci sequence "a few random numerlas" does not only reveal that you have not looked even the slightest into the subject but also that you are one ignorance-filled individual talking a little too much without actually saying anything valid.

So take it easy with the "believers like you"-talk and check up who you are talking to (anyone or everyone?) before you see that you ran your mouth a little too far off, okay buddy?

Peace


[edit on 17-5-2010 by Raud]

Just to bring science and religion together for a moment, let's look at what one of the most brillant people to walk the earth had to say on the subject... Einstein

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
"The only real valuable thing is intuition."
"A person starts to live when he can live outside himself."
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
"God is subtle but he is not malicious."
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."
“Morality is the highest importance—but for us, not for God.”
“God gave me the stubbornness of a mule and a fairly keen scent.”
“What really interests me is whether God could have created the world any differently; in other words, whether the demand for logical simplicity leaves any freedom at all.”
“. . . I became more and more convinced that even nature could be understood as a relatively simple mathematical structure.”
"My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."
"Mere unbelief in a personal God is no philosophy at all.”
"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
"What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos"
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is. "
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
“Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size.”

And two of my favorites...
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”
“I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one?”

www.stephenjaygould.org...
www.positiveatheism.org...
einstein.biz...
en.wikiquote.org...
www.spaceandmotion.com...

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by nenothtu

Who wrote the laws of physics? Is that just another of those 'it is because it is' things you just take on faith?

Nobody "wrote the laws of physics".

The laws of nature are just that, laws. They are necessities, otherwise everything would fall into chaos. The universe is a very fine tuned system. Change one thing and the whole system would collapse.

The man in the video made the following statement, which is a nothing but a huge assumption and basically just a story he tells himself.

"This sequence or blueprint appears to be the trademark of a designer; a proof of a creator; something left behind, indicating the one who was there. A fingerprint."

Something that "appears to be" something is proof of nothing.

This video actually shows a connective relationship of math to NATURE, not God. There is undoubtedly intelligence in nature. Plants, animals, people... even my little finger "knows" how to be exactly what it's meant to be. But it's quite a huge logical jump to say that therefore there is a conscious creator called God.

Fractiles and Chaos show the same connection between math and nature. This is science, not God.

If this truly is a sign of God should this pattern show up in this sequence despite the base number?

Here's the sequence in binary (base 2) up to 144:

00000000

00000001

00000001

00000010

00000011

00000101

00001000

00001101

00010101

00100010

00110111

01011001

10010000

Here's the sequence in hex (base 16) up to 144:

00000000

00000001

00000001

00000002

00000003

00000005

00000008

0000000D

00000015

00000022

00000037

00000059

00000090


I, for one don't see patterns in other bases. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

reply to post by sickofitall2012


Those quotes from Einstein makes me think he was agnostic/deist, not an atheist like we know atheists today. Some have been posting very adamantly that there is absolutely no God or Creator, and anybody who thinks different is a stupid fool.

There are many very intelligent atheists, I have listened enough to them to admit that, but saying anybody, even highly educated and intelligent people who have faith in a creator, are stupid, well that is extremely arrogant.

Highly arrogant people who are super proud of there own self-inflated intelligence, don't win over many, that is a fact.

Dear: Blue-Jay

I always find your posts to be very interesting, thank you for the posting of the video in question. With that being said, I would like to point out some scientific flaws with this ideal. The hypothesis of the video does not take into account the atomic or subatomic structure of the universe. If like the video suggests you continue to breakdown the sequence to its infinite parts, eventually the sequence does not fit within the construct of the subatomic world. This hypothesis can only account for the visible world as we know it. This hypothesis also does not explain the structure of resonance, magnetism, or frequency formation which is needed to achieve the intended ideals of the video. Although I would agree it is of great importance, after viewing this video I would not come to the same conclusion.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

I believe we have much to learn from this but, it is not definitive.

Originally posted by FearNoEvil
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

Nice thread.

Here is another bit of divine evidence.


The Ark of the Covenant is a Golden Rectangle. In Exodus 25:10, God commands Moses to build the Ark of the Covenant, in which to hold His Covenant with the Israelites, the Ten Commandments, saying,"Have them make a chest of acacia wood -- two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high." The ratio of 2.5 to 1.5 is 1.666..., which is as close to phi (1.618 ...) as you can come with such simple numbers and is certainly not visibly different to the eye. The Ark of the Covenant is thus constructed using the Golden Section, or Divine Proportion. This ratio is also the same as 5 to 3, numbers from the Fibonacci series.

Noah's Ark uses a Golden Rectangle. In Genesis 6:15, God commands Noah to build an ark saying,"And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits."Thus the end of the ark, at 50 by 30 cubits, is also in the ratio of 5 to 3, or 1.666..., again a close approximation of phi not visibly different to the naked eye. Noah's ark was built in the same proportion as ten arks of the covenant placed side by side.

Exodus 27:1-2 mentions the dimensions of the altar -- constructed according to phi: "Build an altar of acacia wood, three cubits high; it is to be square, five cubits long and five cubits wide."

Furthermore, the location of Jerusalem is 31 degrees 45 minutes north of the equator. God said Jerusalem is "the city which I have chosen to put my name there" (1 Kings 11:36). Why did God select this location? First build a rectangular building in Jerusalem with sides that exhibit the golden rectangle ratio. The longer two sides (1.618) must run from east to west... (more)
british-israel.us

I forgot to include dates in this first post...


Earliest evidence of the Golden Ratio according to Wiki...
Phidias (490–430 BC) made the Parthenon statues that seem to embody the golden ratio.

Book of Genesis was written around 1410 BC



Just more food for thought - not trying to shove the Bible or God down anyone's throat.

reply to post by inforeal


Who wants to know?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


He believed in a Creator, just not a personal God. He didn't think God bothered Himself with our day to day details, only the big picture.

Edit to add thank you Blue jay for posting that video, very good thread!!!
I myself have found an inner balance of religion and science. I believe the Almighty God and science are the same.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by sickofitall2012]

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

Nice Blue Jay pic.

Back to topic
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)

Why should people accept that a creator exists when no evidence can prove that one does?

This is ATS. You know, the one where people put forth scads of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, that the CIA killed JFK, etc. Surely someone can provide falsifiable evidence of a Creator.

Originally posted by sparky8251
If this truly is a sign of God should this pattern show up in this sequence despite the base number?

Here's the sequence in binary (base 2) up to 144:

...

Here's the sequence in hex (base 16) up to 144:

...

I, for one don't see patterns in other bases. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Binary and hex are the devil's tools. That's why there's so much porn on the Internet tubes.

Everyone knows God uses the base-10 numbering system:

"The creator of the universe works in mysterious ways— but he uses base ten and he likes round numbers."
- Scott Adams

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Highly arrogant people who are super proud of there own self-inflated intelligence, don't win over many, that is a fact.

This is true and you are right. There are arrogant people in all walks of life, including believers of God.

I'm not sure why ANYONE wants to "win over" anyone else. I'm quite comfortable having my beliefs and I'm just as comfortable with you having yours, even though they're obviously very different. I have no desire to "win over" anyone. It's too bad we can't just all be comfortable with our beliefs and leave other people out of it.

You having your beliefs takes absolutely nothing away from me having mine. And vice versa.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
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)

I must also ask Why? I have no need or desire to believe in a creator. I don't know what would compel me to "learn to believe" in one.

Originally posted by Rosha
So how about it...proove for us the non existance of God?
I dare you

I have two F-words for you.


falsifiable: able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science.

faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.


You can't prove that God doesn't exist. However, that's not proof that He does exist - it merely shows that God's existence is not falsifiable. And, therefore, it's completely pointless to pretend that a belief in God is backed up by anything other than faith.

It's fine to believe in God. But admit that it's something you can believe is true, rather than something you know is true.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Highly arrogant people who are super proud of there own self-inflated intelligence, don't win over many, that is a fact.

This is true and you are right. There are arrogant people in all walks of life, including believers of God.

But what's more arrogant?

"I don't know what happens after we die, or why we are all here."

or

"I know exactly what happens after we die. And I know exactly why we are all here."

Doubt is not equal to arrogant certitude.

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
You can't prove that God doesn't exist. However, that's not proof that He does exist - it merely shows that God's existence is not falsifiable. And, therefore, it's completely pointless to pretend that a belief in God is backed up by anything other than faith.

It's fine to believe in God. But admit that it's something you can believe is true, rather than something you know is true.

Hence a rational person would be agnostic

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
But what's more arrogant?

"I don't know what happens after we die, or why we are all here."

or

"I know exactly what happens after we die. And I know exactly why we are all here."

Neither. It depends on how they are presented. I was speaking of the fact that there are arrogant PEOPLE everywhere. You've presented 2 STATEMENTS. I don't think statements have the ability to be arrogant.

Doubt is not equal to arrogant certitude.

Neither is arrogance equal to certitude. Knowing something that hasn't been proven is not arrogance. It's faith. And there are MANY faithful people who say they KNOW (and I think they actually mean BELIEVE, but they prefer to use the word know) that I would never consider arrogant.

I'm always amazed at the potential for people's "faith" in science. People will believe the completely absurd probabilities associated with the "random" occurrence of complex life forms on a spinning ball of molten rock orbiting a ball of fire.

At least the one's who believe the "ancient alien ancestor" theory give credit that there has to be some type of intelligence behind this... but they fail to go far enough.

When I see people say things like "God is for people who fear death" or "God(s) are man made creations for the masses" I am reminded of a story/joke (not all that funny).

Two scientists after a long and storied career of research and study were finally able to produce a single celled organism from basic components found on earth (carbon, water, ect..). Upon their death they met God and when he asked them
-"Why did you not believe in me"
they replied
-"Well, we were able to create life ourselves... MAN CAN CREATE LIFE!"
God calmly nodded and then replied
-"Ok, show me"
So the scientists quickly set about getting their equipment in order and all their materials gathered and then moved into their familiar scientific demonstration mode
-"Alright God, here we go. First you take some carbon and silicon separated out of this sand and you combine it with...."
God quickly interrupted them:
-"Whoa Whoa Whoa... that's MY sand there, you have to create you own sand"
With a completely dumbfounded look on their faces the scientists turned around and walked off...

See, the problem is with all of our grand theories and evolved thought, we often forget that stuff doesn't just happen. Things are not simply created from nothing. Something had to start it, create the origins or the building blocks. To say there just "was" matter in the universe for the big bang to occur is to take as much blind faith in the non-God theory as the rest of us that have faith in God.

I don't deny the eerie mathematical/geometrical patterns in nature and existence. Does it prove their is A creator? I do not think so. I think it only shows that we still do not know a heck of a lot about the nature of existence. And "discovering" this "fingerprint" is only the tip of the iceberg. I believe it is still a rather large leap to say that this proves that there is some being that created the universe. Isn't it just as possible, given this information, that existence is its own creator? Could it be that there is some other "force" that we have not discovered yet that is the facilitator between this "fingerprint" and the existence of matter?

I just have a problem with the personification of God. Maybe it just makes people feel comfortable to put "him" (could just as well be "her" couldn't it?) in a box. I do not believe there is a SOMEONE who created us. And I do not think this proves there is. I just have to ask, do those who believe this proves God imagine "him" sitting up there with a pencil and paper writing out these crazy equations and making something from nothing out of them? I would imagine not, so my next question would be how do you reconcile this idea with the existence of God? Do you just chalk it up to the "he works in mysterious ways" category?

P.S. I am not an atheist