Proof there is a God

Discussion in 'Religion' started by JBrentonK, Sep 23, 2015.

  1. Ted Grant II Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    145
    Anyone who studies the Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic learns that proofs in these subjects only prove other things in these subjects. So for example, you can use mathematics to prove negative numbers exist (in mathematics). You can't use mathematics to prove that anything outside mathematics exists. For example, you can't use mathematics to prove that apples exist. However, because some branches of mathematics can be used to model the world in some way, they CAN be used to PREDICT something in the world. So, for example, Maxwell's equations seem to predict Radio waves. Prediction is not proof, however. The "proof" came with scientific experiments that "confirmed" the prediction. To prove that God exists requires a scientific experiment, not a mathematical or logical "proof". If you can think of a scientific proof of God, get ready to receive that Nobel prize.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,498
    We can prove that nature often uses the Fibonacci sequence as an efficient mathematical configuration for forming spiral objects, from daisies to pine cones to galaxies. This mathematically functional system seems to agree with the concept that natural selection eventually results in a consistent well adapted growth pattern if given enough time.

    I do have a question, could there be a more efficient functional mechanism, than the discovered natural mathematical functions, such as the fractal (self similarity) function? I would be highly surprised. All I need to do is look at a tree and see the fractal function in full glory.
    Seems to me that the most efficient way of multiplying anything, is to make it identical to the original (parent) . No need to add or subtract parts, just a copy of the original form.

    This incredible clip explains the mechanism which produces self similar copies of DNA at nano scale in human cell division. It is very much similar to an assembly line, a bio mechanical function.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,498
    As an atheist I can imagine a causality for the formation of this universe, but it isn't a sentient motivated transcendental being.
    My perspective does allow for a transcendental mathematical aspect to "how things work". A mathematically functioning universe seems to be a comprehensive explanation of the universal functional regularities (patterns).

    Humans intentionally use known universal mathematical functions, whereas the universe itself uses mathematical functions, but does so as a fundamental imperative of efficiency, where certain physical (inter)actions are naturally allowed and others are not. A form of the mathematical function decides, without sentience or intent.

    The uncertainty effect is not an indication of randomness, but a precise mathematical function, too small to be observed, until the function is expressed, at which time we can calculate at which angle the particles' trajectories did intersect and determined their subsequent behavior.

    Why would a god be necessary for these functions, unless god itself is a mathematical function.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,271
    Humans invented mathematical functions.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,498
    No, we invented the symbolic representation of observed natural regular and predictable patterns. These predictable physical patterns, from the most subtle to gross expression in form, seem to be inherent in how the universe orders itself in a dynamical manner. IOW, how it functions.

    Tegmark, Anderton, and a host of other cosmologist and mathematicians admit to experiencing that they are "discovering" these functions, as having always existed and are the essence of how the universe evolves. Universally constant functions which create specific results (patterns).

    Then they translate these constantly forming patterns into the symbolic language of mathematics. And then we have an equation, an answer, knowledge.

    And if this knowledge and its implications are carefully considered and prudently applied, we have "enlightenment".
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,271
    Yes. That is the definition of mathematical functions.

    As you point out: those observed natural regular patterns are predictable physical patterns, not merely symbolic representations.

    You keep forgetting that the map is not the territory.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,498
    No, it is the translation of observed phenomena into a consistent symbolic language of Mathematics.
    Note: I do not claim the universe is mathematics, I claim the universe functions in accordance to certain fundamental consistent behaviors and patterns, that is all.
    It is humans who are discovering and symbolizing these natural universal functions.
    Precisely, and we are discovering and representing symbolically the natural functions which allowed for the physical world to form as we experience it.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,271
    Oh. Well then there's no problem. I doubt any rational person disagrees with that. That is, after all, the very premise of all scientific exploration.


    Functions are a human invention.
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,498
    C'mon Dave, look up the various definitions of the word. You know the context in which I am using the word.
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,271
    Yes. It's called equivocation - the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning.
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,498
    Why haven't you watched Roger Antonsen?

    Not if the context in which it is used is clear.
    But if you have problem with my perspective, let me try to clarify.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)

    Isn't it remarkable that daisies grow their petals in accordance to a function, discovered by Fibonacci, and functionally identified (in mathematical terms) as The Fibonacci Sequence. And isn't it remarkable that this same function appears in galactic spirals.

    Isn't it remarkable that the natural fractal function (as fractal patterns) appears almost everywhere you look in nature. Our understanding, in symbolic mathematical language, of the fractal function have allowed us put a fractal antenna into your cellphone.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2017
  15. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,673
    i bet this universe is like jonah and the whale, swallowed up inside a larger being and that is what they are referring to as god. i guess if you want to worship it but i think it's more about curiousity and wanting to understand everything from a to b. where we come from, what does it all mean, what is the purpose etc. how and especially why.
     
  16. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    When you invent something new, the idea for the invention appears first, then the invention slowly appears in physical reality. Before the first i-pad was assembled, it was a product of the imagination. Then came human activity which fabricated, tested and assembled the first physically based i-pad. This is how invention works. The ancients extrapolated this to nature, with the universe not just appearing, but with it having a beginning as a invention/thought; spirit, which then takes form in physical reality.

    When you invent something, you don't just blank you mind, and then take a bunch a parts that you randomly throw like dice, until poof, an i-phone appears all by itself. This is more like the philosophy of a random universe. The concept of God, is more analogous to human will and choice that begins within the imagination; spirit of information, and through cause and effect interaction with physical laws, the physical universe took shape.

    Don't get me wrong, sometimes invention appears in the reverse way. For example, the invention of teflon was discovered by accident. A tank of fluoroethelene polymerized and left behind an inert solid that was very resistant to stains. This usefulness of teflon appeared after the material appeared. But even still, marketing the new plastic began as an idea in the imagination, that slowly took shape in terms of physically coating objects and people buying them.
     
  17. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,113
    Surely a NEED for something

    comes BEFORE

    the IDEA produces a

    INVENTION which provides a solution to the need

    But you might research on the requirements of your potential customers to understand their NEEDS

    I'm not sure where your thoughts in this thread are going

    If your thoughts are about god inventing the Universe

    he obviously did so with no input from the occupants

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Ted Grant II Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    145
    You don't need to go there to "see" mathematics in nature. There are big trees and small trees, there are many trees and few trees. There are round trees but no square trees as far as I know. So SOMETIMES you can find natural things that have models in mathematics, but that does not mean that God is a mathematician. You first need to find God before you can examine his properties. Even if you did find God and discovered he is a brilliant mathematician, you still don't know that he created the world with shapes that can be modeled using mathematics. In addition, you still have lots of work to do to prove he is the God of Christianity or any one of the thousands of Gods dreamed up by men (mostly) throughout our bloody history, most of which are no longer worshiped.
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,271
    Daisies grow their petals in accordance to evolution, honed over millions of years, where flowers that receive more sunlight out-compete flowers that do not. Daisies know nothing of functions.

    You'll find that no daisy exactly follows the sequence closer than a few percent. That's because its a physical process, not a mathematical one. We can describe the pattern, ideally, with the Fibonacci sequence.

    I think you will find no basis for such an assertion.

    Yes, galaxies form spirals. They come in all shapes and sizes. If you choose your galaxy strategically, you can overlay a Fibonacci spiral on it, and it will superficially match.
    This is not an indication of any underlying structure.


    That's physics. A few 'laws' add up to complex patterns.

    I have idea why you keep mislabeling it as mathematics.
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,498
    The problem is that ALL things seem to have mathematical properties (including spacetime) and their functions and interactions are always translatable into a mathematical equation.
    You cannot get around the mathematics of natural functions.
    We just don't know all the mathematical functions yet at nano scale.
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,498
    Did I claim they "know" the Fibonacci sequence? The whole point is that this mathematical progression is a natural function which exists in the abstract.
    Wrong, you'll find that only some daisies do not follow the FS, because of an external interference, which might be damaged DNA.

    (Re; Spiral Galaxies.)
    I don't, but cosmologists and mathematicians do.
    No, it's an indication of how spirals form naturally.
    Correct, this agrees with Tegmark's hypothesis.
    Because any consistent regular pattern or function which is translatable as values, properties and their interactions. These translations into symbolic language is named Mathematics, by us. A tie knot is a mathematical structure and the act of tying the knot is a mathematical function.

    As Antonsen observed, people see mathematics only in its fundamental symbolic forms. +, -, x, :, etc. But in reality these are abstractions of natural functions and the concept of mathematics goes much deeper than 5th grade mathematical problems.
    For instance, Morse code is a mathematical construct. A Musical composition (notation) is a mathematical construct.
    And the mathematical relationships between string lengths and frequencies they produce.

    Mathematics is man's greatest invention for translating natural functions and patterns into symbolic language of mathematics. But we only invented the language to describe pre-existing and observable regular patterns and interactions of physical objects.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,498
    This may be of interest.

    It explains the mathematical nature of the universe.
    And for good measure:
     
  23. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,673
    That is not a way to understand the world. that is just one way of looking at it but it does not enhance understanding of it at all. because none of this answers the real questions that enhance understanding and that is 'why'. math does not answer the whys.
     

Share This Page