I met a person on line who claimed to have mathematical proof of God. I had a copy of that somewhere on my computer but finding that would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

I looked at it but it was all "math" to me. I didn't understand any of if.

Ahh so there have been attempts. That is interesting. Not that I would understand it either.

but it does make you wonder if it is possible. I mean there are so many possiblities out there and we still stand divided not knowing for sure. Yes of course individuals claim to know or have the answer, but as a whole planet in agreement we don't have it yet, or so it seems.

I worship Infinity.

Quanta does not exist. It is subjective. Quanta is a hypothetical 'thing' kind of like a number. It is made up. A "quanta" does not exist, it has no measurement, weight, or dimensions. It is a hypothetical "thing."

Good for you! Keep worshipping as long as it sheds a smile on your face, I agree

Now have a strawberry

Nah.

They are simply able to recognize that logic is not an absolute, and thus, they are not required to be limited by it.

They just use different methods of understanding, that's all.

Well I am not referring to it, just trying to understand a different concept that Abra is showing.

I would have to first study more about Zeno and his discovery, then understand why physics and math are not compatible in the sense that Abra is trying to decribe, then see how or what this can effect a belief in a designer or thereafter.

So get back at me in about 2 years and maybe I can give a rational answer that might make some sense

but don't count on it! My interest lies primarily in learning to speak and write different languages and to practice humanitarian and philanthropist endeavors.

Yet I am sure Abra will have a conclusion already figure out since he has been at it much longer then I will invest into.


Neverhteless, it is an interesting idea that might hold some ideas or further knowledge on the subject. It is great to see different perspectives. This tells us that the human mind wants to know. At least alot of us are curious about it.

Cut and paste info about a claim for mathematical proof of God. I'm sure there have been others.

Oh no! Not another German speaker that has become a lunatic

Very interesting though

_______________HOWEVER_____________
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
Evolution has a random component (mutation) and a non-random component (natural selection).

In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated. Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. *********Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair. *********

Milk has a tendency of turning sour -- without ANY Designer!!!

Life has a tendency of evolving from nothing into something -- increasing the complexity of mutations (given the appropriate conditionts and sufficient time) -- without ANY Designer!!

Lower level organizms tend to evolve into more complex organizms -- by virtue of Natural Selectoin -- without ANY Designer!!!

So you're calling the DNA molecule itself "nothing"?

Certainly not! But millions of years of mutations could result in something like the DNA molecule...

I wanted to address a few different things here. One of which is the value of logic/critical reasoning skills, another is the idea of anthropomorphism, and last but certainly not least is an idea which I call partial evidence.



Concerning logic...

It is important to understand the value of a logically sound argument, and contrary to an earlier expressed opinion, the logic I use is not my logic. It is logic as it has been established throughout history by some of the brightest minds mankind has ever known. It is the most non-biased method of establishing truth value that we have at our disposal concerning ideas/propositions which are expressed with written language. Is it absolute???

Of course not, but what is? Therefore, for one to use that as a reason to dismiss it's use would be unreasonable, unless s/he could replace it with something more absolute. That is not possible.

Just a small reminder to anyone interested, an argument or demonstration of thought process(which are essentially the same thing) cannot be both, contradictory to known fact, and valid.




Concerning anthropomorphism of the source of the universe...

As a result of the irrelevance to the topic at hand, I will not venture into anything outside of the idea of the original source of the universe. The label chosen does not matter here, because all of those have at least three things in common. They are claimed to *somehow* be responsible for the universe as we have come to know it, they have yet to have been proven to exist, and the very idea presupposes that the observations available to us are enough to be able to draw a conclusion about how the universe began.

The above three elements are true in all cases I can think of, regardless of whether or not personification(anthropomorphism) is involved. When that is done, it only adds variables which are not - cannot - be logically concluded as necessary. It assumes, without logically sound reason, two more things - one being that a creator/designer exists, the other being that that creator/designer has human-like emotions and needs. With our current understanding and knowledge, there is no way to know that.

If we are intellectually honest with ourselves, we must realize that because of the fact that we can only see *some* of what may be - and probably is if history is an indication - so much more, we do not have enough information to be able to draw a conclusion about the very beginning of it all. The idea of the big bang is the result of our using what we know to logically infer what we can. It is not considered to be a source, just a conclusion regarding the earliest possible(most probable) scenario based upon what is currently known. It has not been proven, but anyone who understands the knowledge behind it also knows why it has been postulated as the most likely 'beginning' according to the recognized scientific laws which our universe seems to consistently follow.





Concerning partial evidence...

Di hit on this slightly, and I approached the same idea prior to that a few times in this thread. I found it to be quite curious in a way to witness the invocation and use of scientific findings which support one's idea held with such high regard, but the same science - when demonstrated to deny the validity of the same argument - was held in a negative light as if it were unworthy of consideration. Is that not just a wee little bit hypocritical and/or intellectually dishonest? Selecting only partial supporting evidence, while leaving out or dismissing contradictory evidence from the same source is extremely bad form.

It so much reminds me of rhetorical advertising. Like in the case where two different companies make the same claim like - '4 out of 5 doctors prefer' - or - gets whites whitest out of the leading brands. Claims like those are partial evidence claims, and are meant for the sole purpose of selling the idea that that product is 'best'. The writers leave out the less compelling parts, like that the 4 out of 5 doctors were doctors purposefully chosen for their preferences. Or that the 'leading brands' included in that claim were the 'leading brands which were purposefully chosen for whatever reason' and not necessarily the reason being demonstrated in the ad, and that the claim does not include all of the most well-established or 'trusted' brands.

When one is presenting evidence which is supposedly proven scientific fact, all of us must be stringent in our examinations of that evidence. Most often, one can find fault in the form of argument which negates the content of the claim, regardless of it's scientific accuracy. That is one of the most beautiful aspects of critical reasoning skills and logic. It recognizes the difference between truth, knowledge, and bullsh*t.

Just a few things which I wanted to say at this point in time.

Abracadabra wrote:



Do you really want an answer to this?

Sky wrote:



Could you give some other evidence which supports these two conclusions? I have never seen that claim before, and would like to see how it was arrived at.

Abracadabra wrote:



I have no idea where you have arrived at this. The meaning of design has not been changed or denied. In fact, earlier I posted a definition from Merriam Webster's. Because of the fact that we do not know the designer(assuming there is one) we cannot describe his/her/it's attributes through observation because we have yet to observe that.

The only logical course left is to prove that the universe is a design. A design necessarily has intent, purpose, and reason. We cannot know that either, therefore, we cannot logically conclude anything of the sort. The evidence given attempted to equate our label of 'order' to the necessary conclusion of design. That was refuted in more than one way on more than one occasion.

So, a designer has not been 'denied'. Those are your words which do not represent what has been shown. Only the evidence which has been given in support of the universe necessarily being a design has been denied.



How could such a misconstruction of what has been shown be considered as accurate or true?

There are only two ways to necessarily conclude in a designer. One - show the designer. That has not been done. Two - prove that the universe is a design. That has also not been done. So the concept of 'design' is not only wellknown, but accepted. Just because there has been no necessary logical connection which demonstrates that the universe is a design does not mean that the concept of design is being denied it's validity.



This has been explained in such a way that the reader would hopefully be able to disregard this bullsh*t attempt at degrading what has been done here.

Very good post. (With the very minor exception of what I consider to be a few unnecessary adjectives – but that’s just my own opinion.)

And I understand that your statements are necessarily a bit general, because they are intended to apply to a general viewpoint. So with that in mind, I’d like to address a couple specific things…

Concerning logic…

As I see it, the reason logic is not absolute is that it necessarily excludes first-person perspective. Now that is not intended as an indictment of logic, but only as a statement of one of the defining factors of logic.

Ultimately though, all things must somehow relate to some first-person perspective or they are useless, worthless and irrelevant.

If anything could be considered an absolute, it can only be the first-person perspective. Nothing has any value/use/worth/relevance until it is related to a first person perspective.

This is why I believe …
… to be a limited perspective.

I think it is not only possible, but necessary, to hold first-person perspective as being “more absolute” than logic.


Concerning anthropomorphism of the source of the universe...



As Abra and I have both pointed out, the Big Bang (and its “source” – quantum fluctuation) does not really address the true question. These are “after the fact” observations. They do not point to any “first cause”. At best, they only point to a “first effect”. That is as far back as science/logic can possibly go, by their very nature. In the end, the final statement by science has always been “That’s just the way it is”.

There is no way to demonstrate a “purposful cause” using science or logic, because attempting to do so would necessarily create a paradox. (Demonstration of a first-person perspective from a third-person perspective.)

So yes, it is true that there can be no evidence of a designer, because “evidence of a designer” is, itself, a paradox.

The very most that can be done is answer the question “Does the universe have any of the properties of a design.” Well, of all the properties we can observe (i.e. “order”), the answer is yes. That’s all the “evidence” there is.

Does that mean that it must have a designer? No. No syllogism is possible.

Does it means that it must not have a designer? Still no. No syllogism is possible here either.

So, since the is no possibility of any logical/scientific evidence either way, an anthropomorphic view of a designer is no more and no less “scientifically/logically valid” than any other view – i.e. not at all.

In other words, the whole concept is entirely subjective, from start to finish, so there is really no point in even questioning it at all (other than to gain understanding of the subjective viewpoint itself.) It does not matter whether it’s logical or not. It has no bearing on anything subjective.



Concerning partial evidence...

Well, since “evidence of a designer of the universe” is a paradox in and of itself, the issue of “partial evidence” is moot.



Just my viewpoint.

And again – good post Creative.

Yeah, I can see how that could be a bit cryptic without some context.

Basically, it is the difference between the third-person perspective and the first-person perspective as reference points.

The scientific method is intended to exclude all subjectivity. The whole purpose is to determine “objective truth”. Everything is (nominally) either a direct observation of, or a comparison between, “objective truth(s)”.

Objective is, in this sense, “‘other’ perspective”.

So in investigating “self” objectively, one starts from “other” and uses observed/evaluated properties of “other” to compare to “self”.

In other words, science uses “other” as the reference point when evaluating “self”.


Belief, on the other hand, is by definition entirely “subjective”. It has no dependency whatsoever on anything objective.

So belief starts with “self” and uses that as the reference point for evaluating “other”.

Now of course, this is more a matter of definition than of evidence, since the whole subject of “evidence” implies an objective perspective. So asking for evidence is really contrary to the whole idea of differentiating between “self” and “other”. Which is kind of the whole point of my original statement.

Sky wrote:



Thanks... ...just a little rambling.



I do not see how logic necessarily excludes first-person perspective. Logic is a means of assessing what is written from a first-person perspective.



Logic demonstrates the first-person thought process in such a way that it can be assessed for truth value, through necessity.



How can something inherently subjective(perceptual faculty) be considered absolute?

I’m differentiating between the “assessing” and the “assessed”. The logic “assesses”. The first-person perspective is “assessed”.

A computer program is a good analogy. The “instructions” exist independently of any “input”. It is only when the “input” is “processed by the instructions” that there is any connection between them.

That is the sense I which I am excluding logic from the first-person perspective. In the same way that the instructions are not a part of the input in a computer program.

Well, that is true, but only because it is self-referencing. That is, the rules of logic/necessity are what determine “truth”. And thus, the truth is relative to the logic - nothing more.

In the computer program analogy, that would simply equate to saying “the processing shows the truth of the output”. Thus, the truth of the output is relative to the processing, nothing more.

(Well I guess we’re both guilty of some fancy semantic footwork here. I said “more absolute”, which is a bit self-contradictory. And then you shortened “more absolute” to just “absolute”.)

Anyway…

Let me put it this way: A first-person perspective is an absolute requirement for meaning/relevance/usefulness/value/etc.

Earlier I made a boo-boo...



That is false. An argument can be valid in form yet have a false premise(contradictory to known fact).

My bad!

Very sloppy of me.