MATHEMATICS IN NATURE PROVES INTELLIGENT DESIGN

[durangodawood]

I'm afraid all the pieces of reality were in place for you
to discover. No humans need exist for 1+1 to equal 2.

I think in nature its more like 1+1 = 1+1

2, 3, 4 and the rest of the counting numbers seem to me like an abstraction to make counting easier for us.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Atheistically confused?

No, should I be? by what?

 

[Radrook]

No, should I be? by what?

Well, you seem confused by two stars merging so I figured that the reference to two humans merging into one would provoke greater confusion..

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, you seem confused by two stars merging so I figured that the reference to two humans merging into one would provoke greater confusion..

Not sure what made you think I was confused, or why, indeed, you'd want to provoke greater confusion if I was...

Having said that, you do make a habit of misreading the situation and then provoking confusion

 

[SkyWriting]

Lol! - those two celestial bodies are about to merge; expressed numerically 1 + 1 = 1, but however we interpret it, nature just does what nature does.

Very clever point.

 

[Radrook]

Not sure what made you think I was confused, or why, indeed, you'd want to provoke greater confusion if I was...

Having said that, you do make a habit of misreading the situation and then provoking confusion.

Your example uses equivocation.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Numbers and math in general is a human invention. There were societies in the past that functioned without having anything represent the absence of something, which is what 0 is for. Yes, the absence of an object can be concluded without having a representation of it in the form of a number, but the numbers make it easier and faster.

 

[98cwitr]

MOD HAT ON

Thread has been cleaned. The Staff at Christian Forums would like to encourage and remind you that our site rules call you to address one another with respect. I am posting the rule for everyone's review

Flaming and Harassment
Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue. Refrain from insulting, inflammatory, or goading remarks. When you disagree, remember to address the content of the post and not the poster personally.
If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.
Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian is not allowed.
Be considerate and do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.
Respect another member's request to cease personal contact.


Statement of Purpose and Off-Topic
Read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose. Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.

If your post is missing, it is due to a violation of the above rule or because you quoted a post containing this violation.

Again, please be kind to one another, as Christ has called us to do.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[bhsmte]

Your example uses equivocation.

projection and irony.

 

[Radrook]

projection and irony.

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

Albeit in common parlance it is used in a variety of contexts, when discussed as a fallacy, equivocation only occurs when the arguer makes a word or phrase employed in two (or more) different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning throughout.[1][2]

It is therefore distinct from (semantic) ambiguity, which means that the context doesn't make the meaning of the word or phrase clear, and amphiboly (or syntactical ambiguity), which refers to ambiguous sentence structure due to punctuation or syntax.[3]

A common case of equivocation is the fallacious use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time.
Equivocation - Wikipedia

 

[KCfromNC]

Equivocation - Wikipedia

Very good, you've learned a new word today. Why do you feel you need to share that fact here?

 

[John 1720]

It's somewhat mindblowing that the sum of the first n cubes is the square of the nth triangular number. But it cannot be otherwise.

I think Euler's discovery of mathematical relationship between the equivalency of exponential growth and circular motion is much more profound. How did he get there? He had deep insight in discovering truths. Most of us, even with trained eyes, miss many truths all around us. Euler did not invent the relationship. He simply was blessed to be able to find great truths This was especially true of Gospels, the truth of Jesus Christ, and how His suffering and resurrection relates to us, as Euler spoke of so often.

• Christian Mathematicians – Euler

 

[Radrook]

Numbers and math in general is a human invention. There were societies in the past that functioned without having anything represent the absence of something, which is what 0 is for. Yes, the absence of an object can be concluded without having a representation of it in the form of a number, but the numbers make it easier and faster.

That doesn't explain away the presence of math in nature itself.

 

[Speedwell]

That doesn't explain away the presence of math in nature itself.

You have not shown the presence of math in nature, so no explanation is required. All you have done is show that math describes nature--a very different thing indeed.

 

[durangodawood]

You have not shown the presence of math in nature, so no explanation is required. All you have done is show that math describes nature--a very different thing indeed.

I agree.

But... do you think the structures and patterns in nature (which we describe mathematically) are what Radrook et al are really talking about as pointing to God, rather than our descriptions (the math).

Perhaps this is better addressed to @Radrook ....

 

[Speedwell]

I agree.

But... do you think the structures and patterns in nature (which we describe mathematically) are what Radrook et al are really talking about as pointing to God, rather than our descriptions (the math).

Perhaps this is better addressed to @Radrook ....

That's what I am trying to find out. There are Christians who think that Philosophical Realism is essential to Christian doctrine. Radrook, as you say, may merely be pointing to order in Nature without asserting any particular ontological status for axiomatic formal systems like math and logic.

 

[Radrook]

I agree.

But... do you think the structures and patterns in nature (which we describe mathematically) are what Radrook et al are really talking about as pointing to God, rather than our descriptions (the math).

Perhaps this is better addressed to @Radrook ....

I believe that they point to an intelligent designer. The nature of that intelligent designer is totally irrelevant to the conclusion of intelligent design itself. It would be like demanding to know who exactly built a bridge before we agree to admit that it was designed.

 

[bhsmte]

I believe that they point to an intelligent designer. The nature of that intelligent designer is totally irrelevant to the conclusion of intelligent design itself. It would be like demanding to know who exactly built a bridge before we agree to admit that it was designed.

Does this mean, you personally have no feeling at all, of who this intelligent designer may be?

 

[durangodawood]

I believe that they point to an intelligent designer. The nature of that intelligent designer is totally irrelevant to the conclusion of intelligent design itself. It would be like demanding to know who exactly built a bridge before we agree to admit that it was designed.

"They"?

The patterns and structures - the forms - of nature? Or the mathematics? (Or both?)

Thats what I was asking.

 

[Radrook]

"They"?

The patterns and structures - the forms - of nature? Or the mathematics? (Or both?)

Thats what I was asking.

Seems like a trick question. What is your point?