Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think in nature its more like 1+1 = 1+1I'm afraid all the pieces of reality were in place for you
to discover. No humans need exist for 1+1 to equal 2.
Well, you seem confused by two stars merging so I figured that the reference to two humans merging into one would provoke greater confusion..No, should I be? by what?
Not sure what made you think I was confused, or why, indeed, you'd want to provoke greater confusion if I was...Well, you seem confused by two stars merging so I figured that the reference to two humans merging into one would provoke greater confusion..
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.
Your example uses equivocation.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.
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).projection and irony.
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.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.
That doesn't explain away the presence of math in nature itself.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.
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.That doesn't explain away the presence of math in nature itself.
I agree.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.
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.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.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.
"They"?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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?