An attempt to prove ‘God’ .. disprove if you like
I have been thinking that it can be done lately… if you want to disprove ‘God’ feel free.. It doesn’t matter to me exactly you think ‘God’ is (please share if you like tho).. but by ‘God’ I am referring to a creator that created us specifically.
My theory is that our existence is one of two things… Random, or rational… there are no other options…
Random being some scientific, mathematical inconsistent anomaly that placed us here on this earth, and able to take care of ourselves, not ‘God’… Rational being ‘God’ placed us here with deliberation (is that a word?)
To me, this reality makes it undeniable.. Our existence is full of rationality, mathematical consistences, analogies and paradoxes, where ‘God’s’ work can be viewed and reflected on ourselves..
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
you might have put a little hole in my boat but i’m not worried ;) ..
I don’t want to let go of the rationality I see in front of me.. the purpose that I actually can see.. And I was trying to use science to defend rationality as consistency..
But once we actually see how divere life in this galaxy is I believe my hole is plugged… it would again be to inconsistent with anamolies..
and abosolutely won the lottery a billion times in a row… or you’d have a reptile leg, and chicken wing, and no teeth and wouldn’t breathe, couldn’t talk, the possibilites are endlessly flawed, instead of endlessly fuctional… pure rationality brother…
And i believe i have the monkey arguement sussed… we are not a radom word… we would a radom novel writin in 12 different languages by that monkey.. didn’t happen
if you can prove rationality in life, you can prove a creator… otherwise the things i have stated above would be the case… And that is proven mathematically
no Meaghan incosistancies meaning lack of ‘God’, not lack of proof .. as stephen is saying, inconsistencies can happen in math, so it could have happened, therefor my arguement is bunk.. We don’t agree.. and I see it as a mook point.. inconsistency vs. consistency, i’ll take consistency everytime.. The biggest problem I have created is saying ‘because I am rational, I recognize what consistency is, and since life is consistent, it had to come from a rational being’, I can never truely prove the being without relating it to the self, so I was trying to skip it, and use math and science as automatic proof of a being, because it is rational and consistent… am I talking to you on your level now stephen?
to try and explain better meaghan.. the fibanacci sequence is repeatative,our dna sequences are reapetative, our tides are consistent, our time is consistent, necessary for life, a perfect alignment of baffling, complex math and science formulas.. so what i have tried to do is bridge a gap saying that because i recognize this as rational, and am writing off aligned anamolies as impossible, assuming each minute detail of our creation would be consisdered an anomoly, I am acknowledging a thinking, rational force, therefor ‘God’..
Faith bridges the same gap
that is the best I can explain my attempt at this theory…
“There are no mathematical anomalies in nature”
I don’t know the truth of this statement and I would like to know why you think it is true. What is a mathematical anomaly? It seems to me we’re talking about chaos. This is what I found:
“Chaotic behavior has been observed in the laboratory in a variety of systems including electrical circuits, lasers, oscillating chemical reactions, fluid dynamics, and mechanical and magneto-mechanical devices, as well as computer models of chaotic processes. Observations of chaotic behavior in nature include changes in weather, the dynamics of satellites in the solar system, the time evolution of the magnetic field of celestial bodies, population growth in ecology, the dynamics of the action potentials in neurons, and molecular vibrations. There is some controversy over the existence of chaotic dynamics in plate tectonics and in economics.”
Are these anomalous? They are chaotic because they do not display any sort of cyclical pattern.
The ‘butterfly effect’ means that if we start with only a finite amount of information about the system (as is usually the case in practice), then beyond a certain time the system will no longer be predictable. This is most familiar in the case of weather, which is generally predictable only about a week ahead. Also, only systems which can topologically mix with other systems in nature can be chaotic.
What do you think?
lol slow down Matt.. What about my arguement, the puddle is taking on the form of the whole, because it is liquid, the hole is walled from a solid.. I mean the break down could go on and on.. or substitute the puddle theory for an apple, and all the things that lined up to make that apple be accessable and edable (from our teeth, bite size, digestive system, it’s nutrients, ect.). You cant hold on to the one in a billion theory because these things are lining up with rational consistency over and over and over again… It’s pure rationality… all in row
Aaron, I agree 100%. Religion holds meaning to people who believe in X religion. I believe religion can help people both physically and mentally. At the same time it’s not necessarily religion which is doing that (maybe it is because it is real ((who knows)), but instead i think it is the power of the mind reacting to your beliefs. I think we all know that the mind is way more powerful than any of us could ever comprehend.
“there is no physical proof of religion, and regardless of anything you believe a human child raised in the wild would have absolutely no knowledge of anything remotely religious.”
Not sure if this is true Ben. I can’t say for sure, but If it is human nature to search for meaning in ones life, and a higher power, I’m sure a child raised in the wild would come up with some sort of religion with some sort of God (unless the child got eaten by wild animals before any such ideas could come to fruition).
Matt. Where is the internal rationality? There is no you’re making a sad attempt to use the old “universe tends towards consciousness” theology argument.
Of course it’s a mathematical consistency everything is a mathematical consistency. the inconsistencies are caused by human error, the math is always perfect because all it does is describe what already exists.
You’re confusing he concept of god with the concept of a creator. Imagine an apple that falls from a tree it creates a shock-wave in the ground that forces certain compounds to reshuffle and give rise to a new blade of grass. Conceptually speaking the apple is the creator. Is the apple god? no.
God/creator, is a human concept, you’re projecting a bullshit idea you don’t fully understand onto a reality that you don’t fully understand.
the fact is you don’t know and can’t know.
Maybe I’m oversimplifying or even completely misunderstanding your argument, but it sounds to me like you’re saying that we function too perfectly here, we work too well to not be of intelligent design. But we don’t, look how easily our bodies decay, how easily we can be destroyed by tiny bacteria or in the case of cancer and AIDs, our own bodies defeat us. We don’t work perfectly here, we just work.
To go back to the lottery idea, 1 in a billion seems like a long shot, but if I buy a billion tickets my chances approach 100%. I feel the same is true for our cosmic lottery, there are billions of worlds out there with billions of outcomes, it’s all too reasonable to me that we are just one of those.
“Believe what you want, but believing doesn’t make something a reality to everyone else; just to you. So don’t push your beliefs onto others, and don’t kill for what you believe, because you are just killing off the openness which your “mind” truly desires and needs to be sane and happy. Everything is real and everything is fake.”
I can relate to that last sentence. We all create our own reality tunnel that is both real and fake. That doesn’t mean we create reality.
“Also, if there was a God, why wouldn’t he just make himself obvious? Why so secretive?”
Because that would be no fun at all. :)
“Some may argue that he is all around us, and we can see him in the mountains etc..Nope, I just see mountains, I don’t see an almighty force who says, “Hi Kevin, I am God, I created you and the world.” I just see amazingly beautiful mountains who did not make me or the world.”
This made me think of a quote by Alan Watts:
The hills are shadows, the poet says, that flow from form to form; and nothing changes.
Devon, I think this..
Matt: How long do you believe the earth has been around?
the earth is billions or more years old
creationists: is evolution still out of the picture?
no, we were evolved over time.. there is not logical reasoning to disassociating a creator with that fact tho.. it took a long time, yes.. so what..
Matt: Did you get satisfying and unsatisfying backwards in your edit or am I confused?
“The teeth and claws on a predator were for a specific purpose.. the selection is thinking, if i did this then i would be better suited.. again that process either happened out of rational, or randomness..”
I would argue randomness. And so would many modern biologists… I would recommend looking into Modern evolutionary synthesis, it’s a science, there IS evidence supporting it. And the beauty of it in my opinion, is that very randomness, the fact that the system is fueled by genetic deviation. In short, diversity as the means of our development and a reason for celebration. But the thing is, when you look at this concept(which happens over many lifetimes) you can take out the conscious overseer and it still works, sure you can still say god was there guiding the whole thing and I by no means can prove you wrong(with him being invisible and what not) but my point is the system didn’t need external guidance.
Furthermore, you say randomness would be something with a one in a billion chance likelihood happening a billion times in a row… that’s small scale… and not even a close representation of what realistically is being proposed by people with opposing views. Evolution is a linear process, there is no way for it to occur other than in a row. And given that we have absolutely no idea as to the possible variations that would have permitted life on this planet or any other, we need to widen our perspective a bit when we look at the likelihood of it occurring without the help of a creator. In the lifetime of our universe, yes just this one little universe, humans are a blink… one blink
I’m not sure what exactly the monkey argument was but the lottery one is flawed. To say that we would have had a chicken wing or a reptile leg or wouldn’t breathe is saying you don’t believe in evolution. Evolution brought us to this point, survival of the fittest, and clearly no teeth, or a chicken wing and especially an inability to breathe would not make you the most fit for survival. My understanding is that evolution follows the path of least resistance, it’s not a trial and error, there’s nobody going “maybe a chicken wing and no teeth, oh that didn’t work? ok let’s try again.” We can look at it as a cosmic lottery to be born in this time and place as the people we are, but once life was on this planet and the situation was right, evolution took us the rest of the way. We developed the way we have out of necessity, we are the best adapted to survive here. But I don’t even believe that we are the top of the evolutionary ladder, at least not mentally. Because look at what we do to ourselves and our environment, I think there’s a step above us, a “homo novus” if you will. A new breed of human that is conscious of the way we have to live and work together if we hope to survive as a species. But I feel that’s another discussion all together.
Lol it happens, it’s hard talking about things on the internet. Hard to read the tone of what someone is saying.
It’s just hard for me to understand how people look at the world from a molecular view? It’s much more than that. At least in my eyes!
“inconsistency vs. consistency”
The real question to ask: is the unifying factor of the universe order and happiness or chaos and death.
The real answer is a dichotomy because there could be no order without the unifying factor of chaos. The universe is unified and ordered, but it is chaos through which we can experience this unification.
If anyone knows anything about chaos theory, please post.
My point Aaron is that there are no anomalies in reality. A mathematical anomaly is a mistake a limitation in the language that describes reality (which can only be on account of human error) not in actual reality. There are pure natural mathematics, and then there is our model of mathematics which is not perfect yet and as such, in that language is where the anomalies pop up. It is our conceptual model that is flawed, not reality. If there were an anomaly in reality all of reality would collapse upon itself.
We’re not talking about chaos theory here. I’ve done a lot of work with chaos theory in my University years. Your butterfly effect thing is bang on the money, in reality there is no such thing as chaos, when we come across chaos all that means is that we are not seeing the full picture.
Thats why in computer programming, you can not create actual “real” chaos, because to write the program you must know all the variables and process; and see the entire picture.
If we say the entire picture in reality, the entire vast range of the butterfly effect, we should see the determinacy giving rise to the so called elements of “chaos”.
I think, that if a system seems chaotic, it’s only because we are not actually seeing the entire reach of system. Nothing is random.
Look the fact is. You can’t prove there is 100% and can’t prove there isn’t 100%. The only truthful course of action is to say “I don’t know”.
If beating a drum about your belief or lack thereof is more important to you than the truth, then the existence or lack thereof of a god is the least of your worries.