Evidence that God is real

[Quantum Quack]

Tests have also be run on those digits, just in case. The result is that, as far as we can tell so far, the digits of pi look random, which is to say that they follow no pattern except that of pi itself.

There is something else to consider with this that also may impress.
If the numbers were truly random then patterns would actually be present randomly... In other words the digital construction that we see actually appears to be "determined" not to have patterns.
So why would pi seemingly determine a lack of patterns?
Years ago I converted pi into a grey scale image using 0-9 gradient just for fun. 5000 px across by 5000 px down, a total of 25 million placeholders (each pixel being a placeholder) and then compared to a picture created using a quality random number generator. The random generated picture developed discernible yet trivial patterns, were as the pi one didn't.

The fact that the numbers of pi could be claimed to be non-random due to the lack of pattern forming is truly amazing yet perhaps purely circumstantial IMO. ( we humans are great at finding patterns or non-patterns whether they exist or not eh?)

 

[James R]

My point is that if each digit 0-9 appears with equal frequency and apparently at random, then no message can be encoded with those digits. The total pattern has the maximum possible informational entropy.

One other thought, though: pi has an infinite number of digits, so might we expect, purely by chance, that any given string of digits will be found somewhere in pi? I'm not sure whether that would be the case, given that the digits aren't truly random - they follow the "pattern" of pi, after all.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Do you recall past member MacM, now deceased?
He decided to graph pi using a large number of digits.
Apparently the graph flattens out as you get further into the string. Not that that means that much,. I guess.

listen to a Pi as music (c major pentatonic) 996 decimal places

hee hee quite nice for lightening the mood...

You'll notice that the ear is very good at finding patterns and I don't know about you but I can hear a solid pattern thought out ( Ignoring the supporting music of course.)

 

[Write4U]

Why is it false?

I'm sorry that was a poor choice of words. I meant to say the question is really moot, for the following reason on which are in agreement.

Why is an attempt to clarify the burden of proof such a problem for you?

It is not. As you can see I agree on what theists believe. But that has nothing to do with presenting evidence that God is real or that the concept is even valid.

It appears obvious that sentience is mandatory in the context of this thread. I wish to confirm that this is the case.

As I posted in #411 I agree completely that the only possible concept of a God includes the notion of "sentience", else worship would be moot.

I also posted how that IMO disqualifies the entire concept of God because there is no evidence that any intelligent sentient interference has ever been made, nor that sentience is required for an orderly creative process and an emergent mathematical pattern we call Universe.

God = Mathematics (+ sentience)
Mathematics = God (- sentience). See the inherent conflict.

 

[Michael 345]

My point is that if each digit 0-9 appears with equal frequency and apparently at random, then no message can be encoded with those digits. The total pattern has the maximum possible informational entropy.

One other thought, though: pi has an infinite number of digits, so might we expect, purely by chance, that any given string of digits will be found somewhere in pi? I'm not sure whether that would be the case, given that the digits aren't truly random - they follow the "pattern" of pi, after all.

Found this

http://www.eveandersson.com/pi/precalculated-frequencies

Seems like in the beginning some digits appeared more / less than others

Further into the calculation seems the digits appear to be equal in frequency of appearance

Have not got time to calculate the "% of spread which just looking at the blue bars seems to decrease

Unless someone beats me to it and does it before me

Maybe later I will unless

 

[Write4U]

In his novel Contact, Carl Sagan put forward the idea of a message from God hidden in the digits of the number $$\pi$$. In the novel, if you looked at the appropriate digits of pi (a few billion decimal places down, say), with the right choice of base, you'd find a series of zeros and ones that made a picture of a circle.

This strikes me as a rather neat trick of the kind that a subtle Creator might use to prove his existence to his Creation. After all, who else would have the ability to insert a meaningful message into a fundamental constant of mathematics?

Connecting with reality for a moment, we know pi to lots of decimal places. Last year, pi was calculated to 22,459,157,718,361 digits, for example. That's 22 trillion!

Tests have also be run on those digits, just in case. The result is that, as far as we can tell so far, the digits of pi look random, which is to say that they follow no pattern except that of pi itself.

Reference:
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...with-9-trillion-more-digits-than-ever-before/

Yes, there are the "irrational numbers" like Pi.

Phi is another one.
In mathematics, two quantities are in the golden ratio if their ratio is the same as the ratio of their sum to the larger of the two quantities. The figure on the right illustrates the geometric relationship. Expressed algebraically, for quantities a and b with a > b > 0,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

But these are not numbers. They are ratios between values and I see no reason to assign anything sentient to those numbers. Moreover, the existence of an irrational number does not suggest a rational supernatural Mathematician, IMO.

Mathematics do not require sentience at all in order to function at a quasi-intelligent level and sentience is reduced to "information sharing" such as during a quantum event. (Penrose)

One can also argue that recurring patterns are a sign of a secret message by a sentient entity. But that is demonstrably not true.

But to suggest that everything we experience in the universe is no more than a thought in a super-being is a mental reach too far, IMO.

 

[Michael 345]

God includes the notion of "sentience"

Is the proposition god need NOT be sentient?????

How does that work?

Oh I know - physics fits that definition EXACTLY

From the pope downwards can all go home

Sciforums has solved your problem

Keep a few people on to reorganise the bible into a 10 page (leave out the nasty bits) colouring book and that's it

 

[Quantum Quack]

I'm sorry that was a poor choice of words. I meant to say the question is really moot, for the following reason on which are in agreement.
It is not. As you can see I agree on what theists believe. But that has nothing to do with presenting evidence that God is real or that the concept is even valid.

As I posted in #411 I agree completely that the only possible concept of a God includes the notion of "sentience", else worship would be moot.

I also posted how that IMO disqualifies the entire concept of God because there is no evidence that any intelligent sentient interference has ever been made, nor that sentience is required for an orderly creative process and an emergent mathematical pattern we call Universe.

God = Mathematics (+ sentience)
Mathematics = God (- sentience). See the inherent conflict.

Fair enough. Perhaps you could address the rest of my post. I am very curious as to your response.

 

[Write4U]

Is the proposition god need NOT be sentient?????

See post #411

QQ said,
For God to provably exist does he have to be sentient?

To which I replied that (no sentience) would make God purely Mathematical in essence.

How does that work?

Very well. There is no known instance where a mathematical equation did not yield a predictable answer.

Oh I know - physics fits that definition EXACTLY

EXACTLY. Physics and the mathematical laws which determine how physics interact and produce predictable physical results.

From the pope downwards can all go home. Sciforums has solved your problem]

My view also.

Keep a few people on to reorganise the bible into a 10 page (leave out the nasty bits) colouring book and that's it

It might even eliminate religious wars, although that may be too much to hope for...

 

[Write4U]

Fair enough. Perhaps you could address the rest of my post. I am very curious as to your response.

I identify with your analogy of "zero", as viewed from different perpectives.

 

[Write4U]

IMO, the evidence suggests that IF God exists it is a mathematical essence of the dimensional structure of the universe, regardless if it is a universe or a multiverse.

And this God needs not be sentient. The mathematics are sufficient unto themselves.

I believe this what David Bohm called "Insight Intelligence", i.e. a reciprocal form of information sharing, i.e. mathematical equations as inherent aspects (potentials) of spacetime.

It also satisfies as evidence of "mathematical spiritualism", but alas, still not as evidence for a motivated sentient entity.

p.s. Ever seen the mathematical "images" of 4/3? Antonsen shows a series of patterns and images derived from the number 4/3, as seen from different perspectives.
Almost divine, to borrow a phrase, these patterns just emerge when 4/3 is represented in different ways.
https://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world

 

[Michael 345]

QQ said,
For God to provably exist does he have to be sentient?

To which I replied that (no sentience) would make God purely Mathematical in essence.

Arrr the missing part of the puzzle. Have QQ on Iggy

But rather than incorporating mathematics into a concept of God theists argue that God can break his own mathematical laws.

Of course he can - god don't you know the meaning of Omnipotent?

What is the point of worshipping mathematics or physics? That would not make sense

No no no, you need a warm, cuddly, caring Sky Daddy who loves you all, but if you don't worship him will put you in hell to burn for eternity

There is no known instance where a mathematical equation did not yield a predictable answer.

I would contend the religious answer to that either

• You have not looked hard enough or (drum roll)
• god would not reveal himself that way

It might even eliminate religious wars, although that may be too much to hope for...

Nice you end your post with a joke

 

[Write4U]

Of course he can - god don't you know the meaning of Omnipotent?

Yes, but it's meaning is waning. Now there is a spiritual cunundrum....

Use over time for: omnipotent


Is it true that the existence of a God depends on the amount of worship it receives?

 

[Michael 345]

Is it true that the existence of a God depends on the amount of worship it receives?

Think seen that concept as a movie plot. Might have been about Santa

Kids twigging Santa was dad when the toys they got were same as ones on KMart shelves stopped believing in Santa

Yes, but it's meaning is waning. Now there is a spiritual cunundrum....

Use over time for: omnipotent

Pity omnipotent hasn't the property of the stuff name

A Omnipotent word "Omnipotent" boy could that spread itself

 

[Write4U]

Think seen that concept as a movie plot. Might have been about Santa

Clash of the Titans, movie. The people are rebelling against the gods and Zeus orders Hades to release the Kraken in order to restore awe and renew worship.

 

[Bowser]

The topic here is simple. I invite our resident theists to put forward what you regard as the best evidence for the existence of the God or gods that you believe in.

Existence, the fact that we all witness life. I don't see an image of God as you might, but looking at you I might see him. (excuse the gendered pronoun, we are working with the limitations of language)

 

[Capracus]

I can state that they don't exist as "part of the universe". The Christian God, for example, is explicitly described as creating the universe, starting from before there was any such thing.
Whether that means they don't exist at all is, or are in some sense not "real", is - as pointed out above - another question.

Like I said before, you, me or anyone else is in no position to verify or deny the existence of the Tao or the Christian God. We can only conclude that a rational basis for their existence has not been presented thus far.

Nobody is presuming supernatural elements exist, here.

But in a universe consistent with the Tao there is, it’s part of Taoist doctrine.

Lao Tzu informs us otherwise. One does not have to agree with him, but that is the belief involved.
I "packaged" it as specifically and explicitly not supernatural, and included a couple of rational "substantiations", as above. Does that matter?

You don’t get to package it as you please, you have to take it as it was conceived. If you’re going to cherry pick all of the mysticism out of the doctrine, there’s no point in calling it Taoism anymore. It would be like if people only followed the social dictates of Jesus and called themselves Christians.

The Tao is explicitly not supernatural. That's basic, fundamental, and quite significant in a discussion of evidence that supernatural entities are "real". (Because as many have demonstrated, "evidence" of the Tao is ready to hand).

If the Tao is presumed to define our universe, and that universe is presumed to have supernatural attributes, then the Tao is responsible for those supernatural attributes.

No.
The main reason for introducing something like Zen Buddhism or Classical Taoism into this discussion is to prevent the presentation of "evidence" for enlightenment or the Tao or something like that, as is common among teachers and explainers of such religious matters, from being borrowed as evidence of a deity or a God. There are religions and sects in those and other (animistic, etc) traditions that simply have no God, no supernatural entity. Nevertheless, they sometimes deal with spiritual matters of depth and complexity. So evidence of a spiritual realm or aspect or manifestation of the world is not necessarily evidence of deity, God, or the supernatural.

When you describe a universe that is consistent with the supernatural attributes associated with Taoism and Buddhism, you are doing the same thing that other theists do to justify the supernatural aspects of their religions. When you presume some known or undefined quality is responsible for universal function, regardless of what you call it, it still amounts to a supernatural explanation for universal function that cannot be rationally justified.

No such "place" as the quantum realm either, then. Or the biological realm, for that matter.

Quantum models are substantiated observationally and mathematically. We physically exist in and relate to the biological realm, its existence is about as factual as it gets. There is no similar corresponding evidence to support the existence of a spiritual realm that exists outside of our imagination.

People "believing in" things does not make them supernatural. There is nothing supernatural about a logical level of pattern one up from conscious thought, for example.

Believing in things that aren’t consistent with present understanding of natural law makes them supernatural.

Taoism and Buddhism and Animisms are religions or categories of religions.

Religions that like most, include supernatural agency in their conceptions of reality.

 

[Michael 345]

Clash of the Titans, movie. The people are rebelling against the gods and Zeus orders Hades to release the Kraken in order to restore awe and renew worship.

That movie I vaguely remember but it's not the movie rattling around in my brain

 

[Quantum Quack]

I identify with your analogy of "zero", as viewed from different perpectives.

Post#417??

 

[Sarkus]

There is something else to consider with this that also may impress.
If the numbers were truly random then patterns would actually be present randomly... In other words the digital construction that we see actually appears to be "determined" not to have patterns.
So why would pi seemingly determine a lack of patterns?
Years ago I converted pi into a grey scale image using 0-9 gradient just for fun. 5000 px across by 5000 px down, a total of 25 million placeholders (each pixel being a placeholder) and then compared to a picture created using a quality random number generator. The random generated picture developed discernible yet trivial patterns, were as the pi one didn't.

The fact that the numbers of pi could be claimed to be non-random due to the lack of pattern forming is truly amazing yet perhaps purely circumstantial IMO. ( we humans are great at finding patterns or non-patterns whether they exist or not eh?)

If Pi truly is random and infinite then it contains every possible finite combination of digits, and as such it would contain a combination that, when you put into your 5k by 5k picture, would simply be a black image with the words "Hello Quantum Quack".
It would also contain a combination representing the DNA of every person alive, dead, and will ever have lived. Plus the words to the Bible, the Quran, and every image that could possibly ever be conceived, and more.
But then so would every other truly random infinite number sequence.

It would also contain the sphere that Sagan suggested in Contact.
The only problem for those looking is that the chance of finding those things is mathematically zero, even though they do exist (ignoring the issue of whether the infinitesimally small really is equivalent to zero).