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..
@Don, basically yes that’s what I’m saying. But a lack of proof for something doesn’t make it true. As a rational being I have to use that rationality, and that’s science, taking what we have and can see and making the best guesses based off of that.
I would say I’m more agnostic. I don’t flat out reject the idea of a higher power, but at the moment I see no concrete evidence for one and haven’t heard an argument for a creator that has made any sense. If the time comes when some is presented to me I will take it into consideration, until then I will have to go with reason and intellect, with science, flawed though it may be, it’s still the best we’ve got.
I think Matt’s argument comes down to whether the accumulated knowledge of man is ordered or chaotic.
Chaos theory is a field of study in applied mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, economics, biology, and philosophy.
Finite dimensional linear systems are never chaotic; for a dynamical system to display chaotic behaviour it has to be either nonlinear, or infinite-dimensional.
Perhaps surprisingly, chaos may occur also in linear systems, provided they are infinite-dimensional. A theory of linear chaos is being developed in functional analysis, a branch of mathematical analysis.
It can be difficult to tell from data whether a physical or other observed process is random or chaotic, because in practice no time series consists of pure ‘signal.’ There will always be some form of corrupting noise, even if it is present as round-off or truncation error. Thus any real time series, even if mostly deterministic, will contain some randomness.
This shits crazy. I like to just click stuff on wikipedia and read things I can in no way understand. Imagine being able to figure mathematics in such a way.
It was said by the ancient Greek philosophers that there were primarily two things civilized people should understand and appreciate: Mathematics and music.
I’m not writing off a creator because I don’t understand it, I write it off because there is no evidence for it. In my opinion you draw false conclusions based on your inability to comprehend the way our universe works. Science attempts to use rationality and intellect to explain the phenomena around us, to try to justify the “order” that you see, instead of just writing it off as a creator. I’m not fully understanding this order that you’re seeing either, or these “random events.” I’m sure that looking through a straw these events seem random, and the outcomes seem mystifying, but if you were able to look at the larger picture you would see that they are simply one chain of events in an infinite spectrum of possibilities. But that’s an argument I’ve made before, which is why I said that this conversation has turned a circle.
I was thinking deductive reasoning… what are the possibilities?? A being or not, first of all, and an intelligent design or not… Would that hold all of the possibilities? So I cut that in half to ordered or chaotic, or random or rational, w/e… Now stephen says you can’t say order, is reason… but with deductive reasoning, I can’t reach any other plausible conclusion… why is order not reason? That’s like a robot to me… which i guess you could argue evolution is like a robot, determining optimal outcomes, but where did that come from.. deductive reasoning leaves me at no other possible conclusion.. i see where your saying ‘i can’t see the evidence’ but doesn’t that just leave relying on the chaos theory? Remember i was trying to show that consistent math is in our existence, not the chaos theory basically… So would you agree with that you have to be coralled one way or the other… it’s either ordered or chaotic… so which one would you choose..?
Stephen i’m saying it makes more sense to say that order comes from a being.. than not too.. can you explain why it doesn’t..?
First of all I don’t need to explain why it doesn’t. (but I will in point 2) You’ve made a wild claim with nothing to back it up the claim being “order comes from intelligent beings only”. It’s up to you to prove that.
But, you won’t be able. You’re entire theory is a fallacy, your entire ergument id a fallacy of circular reasoning.
You’re saying that order only comes from intelligent beings and inferring that everything was created by an intelligent being. As such when someone shows you an example you can simply of something in the universe you say “That is orderly because of an intelligent being”.
So you’re argument is useless. There are no mathematical anomalies in nature Matt.
Mathematics is a language that we use to describe nature. An anomaly in the language does not coincide with an anomaly in nature. There are no anomalies in nature/reality. If there were, the entire thing would collapse
For that reason alone your whole argument is invalid.
Mathematical anomalies are ONLY. I repeat ONLY ever a result of human error.
Just because someone spells the word “wall” wrong does not mean walls cease to exist.
Likewise just because we have a mistake in the maths, does not mean there is a mistake in reality.
Quite the opposite. All we know for sure is that there can be no mistakes in reality.
You’re mixing up the concept of maths with the actuality of reality.
Worse, you think it proves a point….. It doesn’t.
You’re trying to use a fallacy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning )
to prove a redundant point.
No mathematical anomolies in nature is consistent with what i’m trying to say…
lol i’m just getting confused now, I feel like i’ve done my best at this theory… It made sense to me dammit!
Last try…. our existence is built like a house, with a roof, windows, a backyard, a view, a foundation, ect…. it was not a couple of trees that happend to fall on top of each other, or a cave that got dug out the side of a mountain by some wind… i’ll let my arguement for that be the conistency of the physcial universe, down to it’s atoms, it’s very complex and consistent… So my question to you is how can deductive reasoning not lead you to order, and how do you separate order from God? I can’t find the answer to that.. you have to take a leap no matter what.. but i’m argueing it’s a shorter jump going with order, and god..
“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?
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.
“There are no anomalies in reality.”
“We are not seeing the entire reach of the system. Nothing is random.”
I’d like you to back up these arguments, please. Maybe I haven’t seen as much of the universe as you have but for some reason it doesn’t feel right to argue that there are absolutely no random figures when we’ve only been studying such matters for a short period in time. And we’ve only observed a limited area of space.
I.e. man samples his soil for one season of the year and compares that piece of ground to every piece of dirt this planet has, for all time.
I see. That makes sense. I just was confused about the distinction between a flaw and an anomaly as well as order opposed to no flaws.
Anomaly: something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected
How is an anomaly a mistake if it’s just a deviation from the norm?
What about all these anomalies they list here?
Is the word anomaly just a euphemism for ‘mistake in our thinking arising from limited awareness’?