God's Fingerprint On Creation Found!

reply to post by traditionaldrummer



Algorithms and mathematics are not proof of there not being a creator. They are proof that changes and rate of change tend to follow specific markers and patterns.

This is not proof of creation, but it also isn't proof against it.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
the sequence reveals intelligent design

Actually, it doesn't. In fact, natural processes follows all kinds of algorithms and sequences, none of which imply "intelligent design", and none of them reveal any designer.

Can anybody prove exactly how nature's adherence to mathematical formula reveals or indicates any type of "intelligent design"?

All you can do is say that I'm smug. That's fantastic! Keep saying it!
See above telescope post. That's my evidence I would like to present.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

For a good read into Math and God I would suggest the following book. Link takes you to Amazon.com for a quick look inside.


Is God a Mathematician? (Hardcover)

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
The evidence I would like to provide you with is a telescope. I will buy one for you and then you can observe the gigantic astrolabe-like universe that surrounds you. As far as petulance goes, what could be more petulant than demanding that I show evidence for a prime mover when you live on a world that just so happens to provide you with a star to keep you alive, water, food, and air to breathe? Not to mention you are surrounded by massive heavenly bodies all of which follow courses, the precision of which, is baffling.

As I suspected, you cannot support your point with evidence and resort to the notion that your subjective opinion is sufficient support of an absurd claim. My contention still stands true: the solar system is an organized structure that requires no designer.

Otherwise, you operate on the argument of personal incredulity. The adherence of nature to mathematical constants "baffles" you, therefore it infers supernatural causation. At some point you're going to have to pony up some positive evidence in favor of your claim.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Well I view God as type of artist as well, and like all great artists he signed his work, with a recognizable sign.

It is sign that all can see, after all does not every painting have an artist?

reply to post by fordrew


Science and religion can mix. Creationism does not imply absence of scientific process. It simply implies a predetermined design and a source. Science does not imply absence of creation, it simply sheds light on methods of design.

Inevitably, assuming we don't destroy ourselves, will be able to replicate life. We will learn the fundamental recipes of life and DNA management, artificial intelligence and so on. It will get to a point where creation will be not unlike original life.

----

Anyway, faith can be thought of as science in layman's term. Because in reality, we weren't too advanced back in the day. So it WOULD have to be laid out in simpler sense for us to even begin to comprehend it.

----

In short, it makes no sense to believe that a creator would not use scientific methods(more than likely incomprehensible to us even now) in order to achieve what we see now.

And science has no basis in denying the existence of creation. Every denial is based on biased decision.



[edit on 16-5-2010 by SentientBeyondDesign]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
The evidence I would like to provide you with is a telescope. I will buy one for you and then you can observe the gigantic astrolabe-like universe that surrounds you. As far as petulance goes, what could be more petulant than demanding that I show evidence for a prime mover when you live on a world that just so happens to provide you with a star to keep you alive, water, food, and air to breathe? Not to mention you are surrounded by massive heavenly bodies all of which follow courses, the precision of which, is baffling.

As I suspected, you cannot support your point with evidence and resort to the notion that your subjective opinion is sufficient support of an absurd claim. My contention still stands true: the solar system is an organized structure that requires no designer.

Otherwise, you operate on the argument of personal incredulity. The adherence of nature to mathematical constants "baffles" you, therefore it infers supernatural causation. At some point you're going to have to pony up some positive evidence in favor of your claim.

The conclusion that a creator doesn't exist is still based on your own opinion. It is not based in the realm of science. Nothing you said disproves God. It merely states that there is a law to be followed. Pertaining to creation ... it says nothing else. At all.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

 

Well I view God as type of artist as well, and like all great artists he signed his work, with a recognizable sign.

It is sign that all can see, after all does not every painting have an artist?

I think the term composer is more appropriate... We're the jams!

Nice video, but fractals are even more interesting:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bddedbb4f2e1.jpg[/atsimg]

17 Captivating Fractals Found in Nature

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign

The conclusion that a creator doesn't exist is still based on your own opinion. It is not based in the realm of science. Nothing you said disproves God. It merely states that there is a law to be followed. Pertaining to creation ... it says nothing else. At all.

I never stated a creator doesn't exist, nor am I attempting to disprove god. It's others that are claiming a god, designer or prime mover is evident from mathematical sequences and I am calling them to present the evidence that supports their claim. Nobody seems to be able to do so.

wow, it's an interesting video and the Fibonacci Sequence is certainly a very interesting phenomenon. However how you jump from that to it being a signature of god makes absolutely no sense to me! Anything that is a common denominator in the everything we see you could say is that, so why not energy itself as that is a lot more prominent like saying energy is god therefore everything that exists is part of him?

It's a fascinating thing that I would love to read more into, but to me it has absolutely nothing to do with god, and jumping to that conclusion just seems ridiculous... another whatever you can't explain it must be god situation.

to massively over simplify my point here, it seems to make perfect sense that considering the formation of galaxies follows this Fibonacci Sequence, then that movement must effect elements within it. If it's a predominant force within the universe due to the rotating nature, then it will obviously have an effect on further formations within this system.

I suggest some people do some actual research into interesting phenomenon to learn more, rather than just blindly saying God must have done it. Enlightenment and growth doesn't come from god, it comes from exploration and learning for your self

reply to post by FraternitasSaturni


I appreciate the kind words mate. I too have much respect for you and as you may have guessed I diagree also. And here is why.

The Fibonacci sequence states: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, and so on and on and on.... This is an interesting sequence; however, what about a seqeunce such as the Lucas Sequence? The Lucas Sequence 1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 18, 29, 47, 76, 123, 199, and on and on and on. Also the mathematical relations of PI, 3.14 and on and on and on. All of sequences are present, so are these also fingerprints of God? I highly doubt it.

If the Sequence was so abdundent in the world and these sequence of events was so high in appearing than why is it that every spiral is not a sequence. Spiral galaxies are not a sequence and if they were what about Reverse S-Galaxies? This would cause the equation to go to a place where it cannot theoretically go and that is in the negatives. A reverse sprial would cause the Sequence to have a negative building block. Or a negative "seeds". Seeds are numbers such as 1 and 2 and 3, building blocks.

To simply say that nature favors these numbers is fine, but do not stop by saying this is Gods work. Simply sttaing that these numbers are used in nature and we do not know why there must be a creators fingertips and that nature seems to prefer fibonacci numbers is not an explanation. The great pyramids of Giza favor the PI formula; does that mean that we intended it that way? Actually no, they became that way because of a thing known as commonality law. Which means that everything builds upon itself and that everything is infact drawn from another perspective. The Egyptians did not use PI, but they used different building blocks. And later on when we measured it we discovered that the building blocks they used back then slightly matched PI. It was not a purposeful thing, it just happened due to the laws of Physics and the Physical nature of the world programmed mathematically correct from mathematical principles and laws derived from the natural world.

I could make an arugment for multiple Gods based on Sequences of numbers in nature. But these numbers are just natural processes, not Gods fingerprint, in my opinion.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign

The conclusion that a creator doesn't exist is still based on your own opinion. It is not based in the realm of science. Nothing you said disproves God. It merely states that there is a law to be followed. Pertaining to creation ... it says nothing else. At all.

I never stated a creator doesn't exist, nor am I attempting to disprove god. It's others that are claiming a god, designer or prime mover is evident from mathematical sequences and I am calling them to present the evidence that supports their claim. Nobody seems to be able to do so.

I'll do this one more time...


1,2,4,8,7,5 as our boundary/ 3,6,9 as energy. The energy is spun into shape as the appearance of mass along boundary lines. What we would perceive as electrical arching. If you require further explanation, view an earlier thread, my blogs, or the links I provided.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Americanist]

I havn't watched the vid yet or read any of the replies to this thread yet but I would just like to say that anyone who doesn't believe in some kind of higher power is in a dangerous form of denial. You don't have to be Christian or Catholic or Jewish or belong to any organized religion or even have a mathematical equation to see that facts lurk about everywhere proving the existence of a higher being. Just look at the diversity of life on this planet. It's miraculous. Look at some pictures from hubble. There are some things in this universe too beautiful to deny the presence of "God".
However I personally believe God was never with us. He/she/it popped the little bubble, it made a big bang and he/she/it got scared and ran off. Then the stars began to create the elements that all life is made from. So if anything, the sun is the closest thing to our god as we are ever going to find. I like to think our souls return to the sun after our mortal deaths to chill and be recycled if necessary.

thats my $0.02

peace & love
jacktherer

[edit on 16-5-2010 by jacktherer]

Seems to me this is a case of the classical paradox. If order, patterns, structures, rules and laws are an indication of an intelligent creator, this creator itself must exist without these properties. How can something have those properties and be intelligent and creative at the same time?

Originally posted by Americanist
I'll do this one more time...


1,2,4,8,7,5 as our boundary/ 3,6,9 as energy. The energy is spun into shape as the appearance of mass along boundary lines. What we would perceive as electrical arching. If you require further explanation, view an earlier thread, my blogs, or the links I provided.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Americanist]

How exactly does the universe's orderly compliance with sequences, formulas and algorithms, etc. imply any sort of causation or interference from intelligent, supernatural forces (gods, designers, prime movers, etc)?

Originally posted by jacktherer
I havn't watched the vid yet or read any of the replies to this thread yet but I would just like to say that anyone who doesn't believe in some kind of higher power is in a dangerous form of denial. You don't have to be Christian or Catholic or Jewish or belong to any organized religion or even have a mathematical equation to see that facts lurk about everywhere proving the existence of a higher being. Just look at the diversity of life on this planet. It's miraculous. Look at some pictures from hubble. There are some things in this universe too beautiful to deny the presence of "God".

Another argument from personal incredulity. The things in the universe you of which you stand in awe are easily explained scientifically and without the need for creators or gods. I'll reverse your claim and state that those unable to reckon a world without creators and gods are in a more dangerous form of denial than otherwise.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Seems to me this is a case of the classical paradox. If order, patterns, structures, rules and laws are an indication of an intelligent creator, this creator itself must exist without these properties. How can something have those properties and be intelligent and creative at the same time?

Well said! What was first, patterns, structures and laws, or intelligence? Since intelligence cannot exist without patterns, but patterns can exist without intelligence (there are many unintelligent patterns), the answer is obvious.

Postulating the creator as the cause of universal order we observe solves nothing, because then we can ask "what created (caused) the creator?". And from there we have only two options:
1. Another intelligent creator, and continue ad infinitum..
2. Unintelligent rules. But if they could create the intelligent creator of the universe, who must certainly be more complex than his creations (universe), why dont skip this one pointless step (Occams Razor), and just say that unintelligent rules directly created the universe (universe is less complex than its alleged intelligent creator, therefore more likely to be created by unintelligent rules).

See?

Im sorry guys but to believe all this happened by chance makes Atheism the religion that requires the most faith.

What most forget in trying to disprove God or even prove him, is that intelligence can do neither. Our puny little minds cannot or ever will find God. If God is God, how can a human even think he could undertsand him when we operate in three dimensions and God in seven.

Besides that, God can only communicate through spirit. That is what God demands. That's why so many religious people quoting scripture all day long are simply religious rather than connected with God, they try to use intellect when God himself requires spirit. Thats why Jesus condemed the Pharisees and if he were here know he'd condemn most Pastors as well.

So some know the Bible from end to end. Boo Hoo, so do the demons and they know it better than any human and they undertsand it better. So if it's not the scriptures that save you what is it? Well the answer is stated in the scriptures. It's faith which operates only in the spiritual. Thats why most have trouble with posts like this. They could never ever understand things that come from God without first having God's spirit. The Bible explains this yet most just read the letters. It's not the words that save you, or reveal God. It's spirit.

Thats why is sad and laughable at the same time for me to see Atheists explain away everyhting in existence and debunk 'faith' when they require more than all the religions put together at one time in one place, as spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

Take Enoch or Abraham, for those that know, they did not have the scriptures, they weren't even written yet! But they knew God.

I don't need the mathematical thing to prove him but it is just another of the many things out there that make he mind go "Well there has to be more to life than I'm taught".

I look foward to the debunkers who can explain how nearly everything in existance has a similar pattern. And if they say that is because is came from the big bang just ask them where the matter came from for the big bang to exist.

Another note. It has been proved that time is slowing down and following the same model of the spiral it might be possible that the 'big bang' theory is partially right ( the first day) remembering that something needs to spark it, something needs to have create it in the first place.

Following that theory the end times must be rapid indeed. And seeing as we are seeing advances at a rate that match the mathematical spiral I'd say we have no more than 30 years left anyway.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer



scientifically explain the creation of the universe then.