Proof there is a God
- Thread starter JBrentonK
- Start date
I think where the conversation between you & spidergoat got off track was confusion over the phrase "nature follows laws". It's not like stopping at a red light or else you pay the consequences. "Laws of nature" simply refers to intrinsic ways nature behaves. For example, "roundness" happens when the forces shaping something are radially isotropic. That's sort of a default condition, so naturally a lot of things are round. But it in no way implies that something is governing something else in general. Presumably, every event that creates the material world is due to some complex set of interactions left over from the Big Bang. But I wouldn't go so far to say that's a "governance", but rather, something which is constrained to whatever is possible, subject to other laws that limit outcomes . . . such as the one that says a square can't be round. That's entirely different than saying "be round or pay a fine" (although there are exceptional cases for that kind of principle in various branches of science).
More to the point, the notion of intelligent design is completely absurd. In the first place, it's a repackaging of other forms of long-dead superstitions. But even if it weren't, we have to reject it as devoid of evidence. Further, since the evidence for a Big Bang is overwhelming (Hubble's Law for starters) we have to defer to science to explain reality as best it can, beginning at the first instant after the Big Bang, and in a way that preserves the laws witnessed in all other observations. I say this because the belief that something is governing the universe encroaches the hairy edge of embracing intelligent design, which I think is tantamount to rejecting all of science, which is insane.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Because we have defined the abstract meaning of *potential* and is a proven fact. No woo here
Remember: *God works in mysterious ways". That IS woo.!.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Our mathematics also describe the mathematics of the * action or function* which create the hole, something you seem to conveniently overlook.
And I still have not heard a comprehensive explanation why the unuiverse *should not* function mathematically. So, until you come up with something meaningful that refutes or replaces Tegmark's hypothesis about the mathematical nature of the universe, your attempts to *undermine* a serious area of scientific inquiry will fail. This sideshow won't distract from the Main Show in the least.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
The heavy black lines are forming the reference framework of the graph which represents the wave function of say, a photon.
The horizontal line can represent a distance, a duration, a path, all measurements related to energy and frequency.
The vertical line can represent the object that *deflects* or *emits* the energy pulse, in this case at ninety degrees.
Do you see a greater symbolic meaning to the main grid lines?
Last edited:
I'm not overlooking it at all. I've asked you repeatedly to show us the mathematics that defines the "action or function" of the hole. How would you determine mathematically what made the hole?
Nobody is claiming that it "should not". I'm asking you to show that it does. How would you test your hypothesis? What concrete experiments would you do? What apparatus would you require? What observations would confirm your hypothesis and what observations would falsify it?
The alternative to "God" is "no God", or at least "no evidence of God".
Once again, the onus is on you to substantiate the hypothesis. There is no "true until proven false" in science.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Any causal action follows a mathematical function and can be decribed in human mathematicsl terms, because it is a mathematical function.
Have you looked at Greenland lately and seen the acceleration of the melting of the *permanent* ice cap ?
Are you implying thatthe alterntive to the *mathematica function* is *no mathematical function* or at least *no evidence of the mathematical function of the universe"*
The falsification is that absent the mathematical function there would be chaos.
Your avatar is of a cartoon caricature who couldn't get past ten rakes without hitting his face ten times. And his hair is just stupid.
Since you have no rational reply for sideshowbob, you make fun of his avatar? You are making it difficult for anyone to take you seriously.
Apparently he didn't learn that childish insults are just that. Childish.
By the way, Spellbound, if your avatar picture is you then you don't get to comment on haircuts.
Now I'll give myself a stern talking to for the childlike behaviour.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
While I do not disagree with your statement, I always look at someone's avatar as it reveals a mental process which caused the *choice* of a particular avatar in the first place.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Cute thing.
When will yours be updated to the 21st century?
When will yours be updated to the 21st century?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Do you understand the symbolic meaning? If you do, that is sufficient to me.
Sideshowbobs avatar is Sideshow Bob.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Ahhhh, well then to adopt that character from the Simpsons cartoons explains a lot to me.
You continue to assume your conclusion. It is true that mathematics can describe any causal action but you have not shown that the action necessarily "follows" the function.
What does that have to do with the question I asked? Describe your experiment. How would it confirm or falsify the hypothesis?
No, I'm implying that the alternative to the action "following" the mathematical function is "no evidence that the action follows the function".
Non sequitur. You can't draw that conclusion without assuming that your hypothesis is true.
By that logic, we should interpret your avatar as meaning that you're stuck in the nineteenth century.
For what it's worth, I once had an avatar that said, "Run silent, run deep," which had no significance whatsoever except that I liked the turn of phrase. My current avatar follows my user name. I use it at some places on the Internet and I use a different name at other places. You can take any wild guess you like at how it relates to my real name.