God's Fingerprint On Creation Found!

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
Mathematical formulas found in nature point to something which has been engineered.

I disagree wholeheartedly. The universe behaves in many ways which can be defined by strict, unwavering mathematical formulas. There is nothing particularly indicative of such behavior being "engineered".

Pulling the Fibonacci sequence out as an indicator of design is arbitrary and bizarre. Why not any other formula? E=mc2 seems more encompassing.

I find the whole notion that mathematical constants indicate presence of a god(s). It seems to indicate simply that the laws of physics are pretty solid.

That's silly, and even more so with those stars on it. I forget how many people here are silly , but this post just reminded me.
It's not a presence of a god that is indicative when one encounters mathematical constants. It has nothing to do with religion for me, but it screams intelligence! It screams Prime Mover!
Compare ATS itself to advanced mathematical formula.
Did ATS happen on it's own? Did it come into being without Simon? Would it exist without him, Skeptic, Springer and the mods?

It's a highly advanced combination of 1's and 0's. That's all. So that must mean it's just how things are, it's just there.
There's no such thing as Simon, Skeptic, ATS or the internet, no such thing as the MODS. I don't know the exact history of how the internet came about so that means that the internet, also, is just there. No prime mover behind it.

The responses the resident athiests are posting is prooving how biased and unobjective they are in their beliefs.. This shows they are motivated by emotion and not logic as they like to claim.. specifically the emotion of self pride that has fostered their selfish belief system.
This is quite sad and I feel sorry for them in spite of their animosity for the truth.

In all honesty, Atheism is a contradictory concept. It mocks faith for subjecting to unproven hullabaloo. However, the beliefs of atheism are also nothing more than bias faith. A mathematical formula I use to depict this sordid relationship is the following:

If you don't have proof of either conclusion then it is non-sensical(by scientific standard) to draw any polarized conclusion.

If you don't have a + or a -, then you can't subscribe to either polarity. You simply can't, not by scientific standard. If you DO, which a lot of us do, it is not out of reason, it is out of opinion.

In the realm of science there is no proof that god does not exist, but the same goes for the issue of god existing. There simply is no substantial proof to draw any conclusion. So ... By SCIENTIFIC standards, the safest perspective is to remain neutral until further developments. That is to say, that agnosticism is the most scientifically sound belief. You should at least maintain the belief of possibility.


Now, I know that according to my previous example, faith would ALSO be found illogical, much like atheism, but the fact of the matter is that faith is faith. It is automatically based in the realm of self-realization. In short, Faith is more honest to its roots than Atheism. Because Atheism pretends to be a logical construct, when its conclusions are in fact merely based on personal denial, not scientific fact.

Faith does not subscribe to the same system of rules and doesn't fall so far.


-----

Another thing is that science is increasingly proving the likelihood of infinite possibilities. Parallel realities of infinitely random configurations. The talk of species so advance that their technology might be mind-bendingly ahead of us. You don't even need to subscribe to any religious sect to believe there is some sort of design in our reality.


It is very easy to imagine a highly futuristic civilization having created artificial intelligence, and slowly making it more and more life-like. Figuring out the recipe for life and breeding bacteria and all sorts of organisms. Be able to harness enormous resevoirs of energy in order to manipulate titanic structures with technology we would perceive as down-right implausible.

I mean, seriously. Is intentional design REALLY that implausible?

[edit on 16-5-2010 by SentientBeyondDesign]

Where is your mind? I don't mean your brain, i mean your mind.

Often, we have humans blurring the line between the two. But this is a false assumption. Of course, you have a dig a little deeper and think on the matter...but it is obvious that the mind and the brain are not the same thing.

But they are related. This is likely the point at which people make the erroneous distinction.

Consider the case of people who recieve radical hemispherectomies, yet are able to continue with life and do things like graduate college? How do we reconcile their ability to maintain memory, reasoning, and logic while missing half of their brain?

Consider the following article:

www.articlealley.com...

On Jun 2, 2005, NBC Philadelphia had an interesting report. Christina Santhouse had caught a virus that caused a rare brain disorder known as Rasmussen's Syndrome at an age of 8. And her doctor had to perform hemispherectomy, removal of half of the brain, on her. After 10 years, Christina was about to graduate from high school with honors. After the surgery, she had a slight limp and her left hand didn't work at all. She had also lost her peripheral vision, but otherwise, she was an ordinary teen. A similar case was reported on Telegraph (UK) on May 29, 2002, a girl named Bursa had the same disorder and her left brain was removed when she was 3, she became fluent in Dutch and Turkish when she was 7. In 1987, A. Smith reported that one patient with hemispherectomy had completed college, attended graduate school and scored above average on intelligence tests. Studies have found no significant long-term effects on memory, personality, or humor after the procedure, and minimal changes in cognitive function overall.


The outcome of hemispherectomy is surprising. Neuroscience tends to suggest memory is stored in the neurons in the brain. If that premise stands true, removing half of the brain would destroy one's memory if memory is stored in the network structure of neurons as one school of cognitive physiology suggests, or at least destroy half of the memory if bits of memory information are stored in individual neurons in the brain as suggested by another school of cognitive neuroscience. But it is apparent that the results disagree with either of the explanations. Removing part of the brain has been one of the standard surgical operations for severe epilepsy and has been performed thousands of times. Many of the results are quite similar to those of hemispherectomy. The orthodox explanation for the observation is that information stored in the infected brain areas is duplicated in the health part of the brain prior to the surgery. This rationalization is still inadequate when you take into account how a brain surgery is performed. Surgeon has to remove the infected area and some surrounding health tissue, sometimes a much larger tissue than the infected area, to make sure infection does not spread. If the information stored in the infected areas is reproduced somewhere in the brain before surgical procedure, some information is still lost when surrounding health brain tissue is removed, consequently the memory would suffer. This is not observed after the surgery. So it is necessary to assume that the memory stored in the neighboring health tissue is also replicated in other parts of the brain. This raises a question: how does the brain know how much health tissue is going to be taken out? If the brain does not know, surgeries will inevitable destruct part of the memory. The belief that memory is stored in the brain (in neurons or in the network of neurons) apparently contradicts with findings in brain surgeries.

The article goes on to show that the same can be said in animals like rats, but that is for a whole 'nuther subject.

What this shows is that not only is MEMORY stored in a higher place, but so is the ability to reason and logic. Logic supersedes man. Man merely taps into logic for his own use. His ability to tap into this logic must then dictate his perceived "intellect".

So what/who is the logical force that man is able to utilize? It is a force that also contains the elements of memory (which harkens to concepts such as an Akashic Record).

When i am challenged by someone who claims that there is no God, no creative force, this is my evidence. My shield. It is proof that there is a higher mind than me, than all of us. We are all connected into it. Our brains are merely the "modem".

Originally posted by alienreality
The responses the resident athiests are posting is prooving how biased and unobjective they are in their beliefs.. This shows they are motivated by emotion and not logic as they like to claim.. specifically the emotion of self pride that has fostered their selfish belief system.
This is quite sad and I feel sorry for them in spite of their animosity for the truth.

The responses the resident theists are posting is proving how biased and unobjective they are in their beliefs.. This shows they are motivated by emotion and not logic as they like to claim.. specifically the emotion of self pride that has fostered their selfish belief system.
This is quite sad and I feel sorry for them in spite of their animosity for the truth.

I had 9 years of Catholic school. Do you know how much research I had to do to break free from ONE single line of thinking? I am not saying that God does NOT exist, just that I have given God and the Bible and the whole shebang it's fair share, now I am expanding my mind and learning of other possibilities.


[edit on 16-5-2010 by SubPop79]

[edit on 16-5-2010 by SubPop79]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by dragonsmusic

An organized structure is not proof of an intelligent source behind it?

The solar system, for example, is an organized structure. It does not imply or rely on a creator or designer for its structure or organization.

The solar system does not imply intelligent design? lmao

silly domesticated primate, it does! It's just too big for you to understand it.

Edit because I was being emotional and did not express what I meant to say the first time.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by dragonsmusic]

reply to post by Sasky


The fibonacci sequence is more of a proof of intelligent design than anything else.

Nothing to do with God or whatever you want to call it... but it is intelligent design.

Calling it God is prolly too strong... Maybe that "God" is as mortal as everybody else... but who or whatever it was did leave its mark.

Originally posted by alienreality
The responses the resident athiests are posting is prooving how biased and unobjective they are in their beliefs.. This shows they are motivated by emotion and not logic as they like to claim.. specifically the emotion of self pride that has fostered their selfish belief system.
This is quite sad and I feel sorry for them in spite of their animosity for the truth.

Ummm... what? Using emotion? Most of the Atheists have been posting pure science.

Originally posted by dragonsmusic

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by dragonsmusic

An organized structure is not proof of an intelligent source behind it?

The solar system, for example, is an organized structure. It does not imply or rely on a creator or designer for its structure or organization.

The solar system is not an organized structure? lmao

silly domesticated primate, it is! A massive one, it's just too big for you to understand it.

Did you not read a word he said? Space is organized due to gravity.

reply to post by Sea-Bass


"Correlation is not causation... enough said."

Denying man came from a slime pit, eh?

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
reply to post by Sasky

 

The fibonacci sequence is more of a proof of intelligent design than anything else.

Nothing to do with God or whatever you want to call it... but it is intelligent design.

Calling it God is prolly too strong... Maybe that "God" is as mortal as everybody else... but who or whatever it was did leave its mark.

I agree. Some people just CAN'T handle the possibility that what they have been taught may be wrong. Maybe God is some as of yet unamed particle or energy field? Maybe we should all be following the Baghavad Gita? Why isn't that the true word of God? Those that were brought up Hindu believe it is, just as those who believe every word of the Bible.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by SubPop79]

[edit on 16-5-2010 by SubPop79]

Originally posted by Phlynx

Originally posted by dragonsmusic

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by dragonsmusic

 

I did not say anything about prime mover, in fact, I believe there was something like a prime mover, maybe intelligent, maybe nature itself.

My point was that ordered structures like this are not a proof of intelligent creator. Mathematics is an universal language of the universe, and ordered complex structures are common in math, with no outside intelligence needed to "create" them.

Appearance of complex ordered structures (such as life) could be considered a hint towards an intelligent prime mover setting physical laws in the beginning. On the other hand, this could be explained without an intelligent prime mover by anthropic principle.

en.wikipedia.org...

An organized structure is not proof of an intelligent source behind it?

OK, here's an example to demonstrate my point, can you read the following text? :

aglhgfoiheovuiefhilsfdhlafharehdvkjbvfnrel

That isn't a valid point. You are using an intelligently created set of characters to use as an example for something random. I'm sure after so long you would come up with some random words by bashing the keyboard. With chaos comes order.

It's a valid point because organized structures stem from conscious thought creation. And I could bang on my keyboard as much as I want to make strings of gibberish, but I seriously doubt it would ever amount to what you suggest.

Originally posted by Phlynx

Originally posted by alienreality
The responses the resident athiests are posting is prooving how biased and unobjective they are in their beliefs.. This shows they are motivated by emotion and not logic as they like to claim.. specifically the emotion of self pride that has fostered their selfish belief system.
This is quite sad and I feel sorry for them in spite of their animosity for the truth.

Ummm... what? Using emotion? Most of the Atheists have been posting pure science.

I know, right? That and this topic was perfectly calm and respectful UNTIL that post.

Originally posted by jimmyx
the existance of "god" simply cannot be known. the control of people's lives by those that believe is, however, well known. to suggest a lack of morality without god, is false, and has been proven with the discoveries of tribes of people cutoff from the known world, who were discovered and observed in the south pacific a few decades back. they had a code of ethics and morals not related to any god, only from their own origination.

Are you postulating the existence of a primitive society that has no religion whatsoever? I'd like to see some sources on that one, please. I've yet to run into a primitive society that hasn't deified SOMETHING, and would appreciate a lead to study up on the concept.

Originally posted by starwarsisreal

Originally posted by inforeal
Who is God?

HU IS GOD

God is the creator of all things dude but you can't see him except via Near death experience

wow you're an idiot

Originally posted by freshwreckage
While the vide clearly hints at intelligent design and I am in no way refuting the idea, why do the weaker minds always say "SEE!!! I TOLD YOU SO! IT'S GOD!!!!
Why do you require a deific personification?

Well, it's because if they didn't, then they would all have pompously 'superior' minds, such as your own.

If EVERYONE was as superior as yourself, without those 'weaker minds', you wouldn't be all that superior then, would you?

In short, they do it so that you can be superior, better than them... dare I say 'holier than thou'?

Thanks for all the comments and flags this even made it to the ATS front page.

Why was such a highly flagged and commented thread moved I wonder?

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
That's silly, and even more so with those stars on it. I forget how many people here are silly , but this post just reminded me.
It's not a presence of a god that is indicative when one encounters mathematical constants. It has nothing to do with religion for me, but it screams intelligence! It screams Prime Mover!
Compare ATS itself to advanced mathematical formula.
Did ATS happen on it's own? Did it come into being without Simon? Would it exist without him, Skeptic, Springer and the mods?

It's a highly advanced combination of 1's and 0's. That's all. So that must mean it's just how things are, it's just there.
There's no such thing as Simon, Skeptic, ATS or the internet, no such thing as the MODS. I don't know the exact history of how the internet came about so that means that the internet, also, is just there. No prime mover behind it.

Poor argument. Comparing something known to have been created to something that has the illusion of having been created is preposterous. If the pinpointing of orderly mathematic constants in nature "screams intelligence and a prime mover" I'd suspect you're either lack the intelligence you believe you see, or that confirmation bias is driving your need for you to associate the laws of physics with an "intelligent prime mover". All this talk of "fingerprints" and the notions of mathematical formulas as being evidence of an "intelligent prime mover" is actually another dull and egotistical exercise of humans anthropomorphising the universe.

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
The solar system does not imply intelligent design? lmao

silly domesticated primate, it does! It's just too big for you to understand it.

Edit because I was being emotional and did not express what I meant to say the first time.

Support your point with evidence.

"It does!", combined with condescending petulance, proves nothing.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Thanks for all the comments and flags this even made it to the ATS front page.

Why was such a highly flagged and commented thread moved I wonder?

Because it is fertile grounds for a pissing match for people who are offended that someone may have a different viewpoint than them.

I posted a fairly good observation in support of there being a God based on scientific evidence. But it was not loud enough to be heard over all the yelling.