PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

[AV1611VET]

Note the use of plurals. A fish cannot evolve into a human.

Aren't you being petty?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Aren't you being petty?

Pedantic. I wanted to make a point; evolution is about populations, not individuals.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I appreciate the effort.

Once was plenty

 

[Ygrene Imref]

we actually have evidence that nature was designed (the flagellum for instance is a spinning motor). so its a scientific argument that base on science.

The fact that we "reverse engineer" the universe (math mainly, physics, chemistry, biology...) to understand how it works implies that it was engineered in the first place - on a fundamental basis.

There is, therefore an engineer.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Loss of prestige and salary are things that most people try to avoid.

Precisely. Scholarly article pulling is usually among the first threat. That is almost as bad as having one''s license revoked depending on who you are -whether scientist/mathematician/engineer in Academia.

Then, if it is an extreme case: blacklisting.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The fact that we "reverse engineer" the universe (math mainly, physics, chemistry, biology...) to understand how it works implies that it was engineered in the first place - on a fundamental basis.

There is, therefore an engineer.

Oh great, the argument from semantics...

 

[AV1611VET]

Pedantic. I wanted to make a point; evolution is about populations, not individuals.

Are you telling me I don't have a DNA trail back to one particular fish in the ocean?

 

[Speedwell]

Are you telling me I don't have a DNA trail back to one particular fish in the ocean?

LOL! Are you disappointed?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

To the OP; Ultimately it is up to god to prove that he exists to a person. The best a believer can do is help guide and prepare another to be on a path to accomplish that.

The question of the existence of God is funny to me, because on a philosophical level I can imagine a cell, or multiple cells having the same existential dilemma concerning the human body and intent. And, I end up coming to a similar conclusion everytime: it likely would make the most sense for me to exist as the most fundamental image of life I resonate most with (cell,) and different cells who I was, and what I revealed myself in this way. That Is the best way I would be able to let the maximum about of my body to hear truth about me, and their purpose - if I had that power. Then, working together, I would be the best possible me. If I am right, I will feed my body the right things, expose it to cleanliness, and treat it like a sacred vessel. The profit of that will trickle down to my cells.

Then, my cells would realize that even if they go through trouble (pain/starving/tearing) it was a for the best. Then, they would understand when I work out (for example,) it isn't to punish those cells, and deprive them. It is to make them stronger, and better - as best as possible. And, if I happened to isolate an area of my body that decided to be a cancer, I would give it treatment before it spread - maintaining my "great health," and a "trust" between my cells and me that I always have their best interest.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Oh great, the argument from semantics...

What kind of argument would you prefer?

I try to stay on the philosophical, or literary and linguistic qualities of the argument since, ironically, arguments from FAITH, or SCIENCE won't contribute positively.

Mathematicians don't treat the "idea of everything" as ignorantly as, say, a physicist may, because there are existent axiomatic algebraic and geometric generators that describe "the gods of all algebra and geometry" - infinity and infinitesimal (the same thing, fundamentally transformed.) There are many infinites and infinitesimals in mathematics - but there is only one infinite, and it's "inverse" infinitesimal - that is also in the domain of this infinity - that exists as the prime generator of all infinities. The divergent properties of infinity actually supplements the arguments of its prime position in mathematics. If this was physics, it would be like finding THE single particle that is responsible for all fundamental forces - and realizing that it's divergent properties (infinitely, or infinitesimally) are structured, and construct all orders of the physical reality.

In math, these infinities and infinitesimals exist, that they are NOT numbers, but generators of all algebraic and geometric objects. And, there is a prime of these generators.

Physicists go through a lot of work to ignore this fundamentally connected philosophy on (a) God by making sure their results are normalizable, and "renormalizing" the results that blow up naturally.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are you telling me I don't have a DNA trail back to one particular fish in the ocean?

A population of fish in an ancient ocean.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What kind of argument would you prefer?

Something productive.

I try to stay on the philosophical, or literary and linguistic qualities of the argument since, ironically, arguments from FAITH, or SCIENCE won't contribute positively.

You think playing with words is a positive contribution?

 

[Nithavela]

It's the PRATT parade! Yaaay!

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Something productive.

You think playing with words is a positive contribution?

Playing with words (alleged "mono sema" agruments) is still volumes more learned than sarcasm, especially when I was being genuine, and respectful - wouldn't you agree?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Playing with words (alleged "mono sema" agruments) is still volumes more learned than sarcasm, especially when I was being genuine, and respectful - wouldn't you agree?

Not in this case - your play on words was fallacious; it got off lightly.

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL! Are you disappointed?

Justified.

Justified in saying evolution can take a hike.

BUT ... if I was an evolutionist, and someone told me I didn't have a DNA trail back to one particular fish in the ocean, then I would tell them my name is Genghis Khan.

Even Hackel showed us embryos that show us as fish.

When I tell people I'm not a Homo sapiens, I usually get: "Are you a mammal"?

When I tell people I'm not a glorified ape, I usually get: "Are you a primate"?

Until I ask if I'm a fish, then suddenly the story changes.

I even started a thread some time ago and asked if we were plants, since plants came before animals.

And all I can remember is some fourteen-letter words being thrown at me by way of paragraphs, instead of a simple YES or NO.

 

[AV1611VET]

A population of fish in an ancient ocean.

And you can't narrow that down to one single fish? even philosophically?

What? did ten million fish each contribute one ten millionth of their DNA that eventually led to me?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Not in this case - your play on words was fallacious; it got off lightly.

According to your understanding, perhaps.

I laid it out how it objectively is in mathematics.

I also did the same for physics - with an appeal to a few literary devices.

So, let me repeat myself with the most objectivity related to the orginal context (the evidence of at least a designer):

Mathematicians are already familiar with the philosophy of a prime "orderer, constructor, or architect" of the entirety of mathematical objects: It is the infinity, and the infinitesimal. It is not hard, therefore, for a mathematician to entertain the idea of a god, or a God of gods, because the same type of representative object exists in mathematics. It is a logical extrapolation, and natural exploration of a philosophical similarity.

Physicists, on the other hand, are not as interested in the [philosophical or realistic] idea of gods, or a God of gods, because the work of physicists is not to entertain something that has an undefined domain in nature, or exists as an unidentifiable/unquantifiable generator of all possible action. Physicists are interested in normalizable solutions, as these are the solutions that best represent nature as a physicist knows it. And, if a result is naturally divergent, the solution is unusable unless one can "renormalize" the result.

These aren't arguments appealing to the meaning of words, only. This is the fundamental structure of disciplines, and an extrapolation of that structure into philosophy to reconcile the affinity toward an idea - namely the existence of an engineer/creator of everything.

 

[Radrook]

Justified.

Justified in saying evolution can take a hike.

BUT ... if I was an evolutionist, and someone told me I didn't have a DNA trail back to one particular fish in the ocean, then I would tell them my name is Genghis Khan.

Even Hackel showed us embryos that show us as fish.

When I tell people I'm not a Homo sapiens, I usually get: "Are you a mammal"?

When I tell people I'm not a glorified ape, I usually get: "Are you a primate"?

Until I ask if I'm a fish, then suddenly the story changes.

I even started to tread some water.

Now why would you do that?

 

[Radrook]

but what is the besy possibility: that a motor is the product of design or natural process? think about finding a self repliciating ufo on another planet. do you think it will not be evidence for aliens?

Not if the aliens go by the name of Yahweh.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Mathematicians are already familiar with the philosophy of a prime "orderer, constructor, or architect" of the entirety of mathematical objects: It is the infinity, and the infinitesimal. It is not hard, therefore, for a mathematician to entertain the idea of a god, or a God of gods, because the same type of representative object exists in mathematics. It is a logical extrapolation, and natural exploration of a philosophical similarity.

Physicists, on the other hand, are not as interested in the [philosophical or realistic] idea of gods, or a God of gods, because the work of physicists is not to entertain something that has an undefined domain in nature, or exists as an unidentifiable/unquantifiable generator of all possible action. Physicists are interested in normalizable solutions, as these are the solutions that best represent nature as a physicist knows it. And, if a result is naturally divergent, the solution is unusable unless one can "renormalize" the result.

These aren't arguments appealing to the meaning of words, only. This is the fundamental structure of disciplines, and an extrapolation of that structure into philosophy to reconcile the affinity toward an idea - namely the existence of an engineer/creator of everything.

It's a nice idea, but I don't think it works - physicists too have an interest in generators of all possible action, e.g. theories of everything, entropy gradients, the QM of Everettian Many Worlds, etc. They also have interest in as-yet undefined domains, e.g. the multiverse, holographic principle, M-theory, and various infinities and eternalisms, e.g. eternal inflation, an infinite universe, etc.

But it should be testable - have you checked whether there are many more mathematicians than physicists entertaining God beliefs, or at least, having an interest in religion or religious ideas?