PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

[Ygrene Imref]

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.

Physicists have interests in elementary generators of things, but the superlative is not the interest of physics, categorically, because it represents a fringe of nature. Infinity is not natural, according to science. Divergent results are meaningless, quantitatively, to scientists. And, so physics, for example, wouldn't entertain the idea of an unbounded, structured prime of every single possible construct ever believed to exist - and beyond. It isn't even entertainment for them, because it is not something that is natural, or has quantitative worth (namely because it can't be quantified.)

Mathematicians must entertain the prime nature of an infinity, and can entertain the idea of a Prime of primes - which is why a mathematician can, at least by philosophy, understand and entertain arguments for a god, or God of gods. This is independent of one's spiritual beliefs: this is a fundamental, qualifiable and even quantifiable (in some examples) extrapolation from discipline to philosophy. In other words, the nomenclature used in mathematics and religion to describe their respective conclusions are disconnected only by issues of semantics, fundamentally.

Most "occult," or "gnostic" sects knew this - and bastardized what some would call "pure faith" by using the connection between mathematics and "religion" to appear divine, or wise.

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?

My polemy concerning the ability of a mathematician to entertain gods more than a physicist should be testable? It is a dialectic, even axiomatic in philosophy and reality, precisely because of the way each discipline is structured (mentioned several times in detail before.) If you take two people from a cultural and spiritual vacuum, and make them instant scholars of mathematics, and physics, respectively, the mathematician will be most philosophically receptive to the idea of a god because there is already a philosophical connection between the objects that make up mathematics, and the objects that make up religion. Masons, druids, real magicians and ancient philosophers recognized the implicit relationship between primes of mathematics constructing our world as we know it, and a "greater, bigger or Biggest" analogue constructing the universe itself.

They didn't need physics to understand there was a structure and order to things; in fact, pure "atheism" is a very new paradigm. The "gnostics" were simply people who knew things about math and the spiritual world, and they considered everyone else "agnostic," because they didnt know the secrets - including spme Christian denominations. Many people of antiquity believed or understood there were other "gods," or "greater" creation. The activity of worship was a different issue.

"Diety" is buried in mathematics itself.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

You could pick some arbitrary ancient ancestor fish to represent your relationship, but pretty much every other fish in that population would be equally representative.

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

Lol!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Physicists have interests in elementary generators of things, but the superlative is not the interest of physics, categorically, because it represents a fringe of nature. Infinity is not natural, according to science.

That's not what you'll find if you ask physicists whether the universe is infinite; they'll tell you that it could be, we don't know - and many of them work on the assumption that it is.

 

[AV1611VET]

You could pick some arbitrary ancient ancestor fish to represent your relationship,

Then let's not arbitrarily pick.

I'm asking if my DNA can be traced back to one particular fish in the ocean.

I realize I'll never know what that exact fish was, but the DNA trail would.

... but pretty much every other fish in that population would be equally representative.

Equally representative of who ... me? or someone else?

If you say someone else, then I will agree.

But if you mean me, then please explain how some fish miles away from my Ichthyological grandfather had something to do with my DNA trail.

 

[Radrook]

A population of fish in an ancient ocean.

I think he wants the exact species name of that Great Grandpappy fish you are referring to.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think he wants the exact species name of that Great Grandpappy fish you are referring to.

Negatory.

I just want to see if it's appropriate to consider us "fish".

After all, if we're mammals, primates, vertebrates, and Darwin knows what all else ... does the trail go through fish?

If not, what crawled out of the water onto land and ended up becoming man?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

That's not what you'll find if you ask physicists whether the universe is infinite; they'll tell you that it could be, we don't know - and many of them work on the assumption that it is.

Right, because infinity is categorically outside of their realm of study. It is fringe nature. Infinity will never be a stand alone admission of existence without conditionals. The infinite universe theory works in their favor just like long times for evolution work for the evolutionist. Probablistically, physicists can entertain a divergent answer. But, it is useless.

The universe as an infinite entity is something physicists have had to adapt because of the math. But, physicists are more inclined to study the finiteness (literal beginning and end) of the universe and how it relates to nature as they know it.

Physics came from applied math; math came from philosophy. Physics does not entertain fringes, and rather let's mathematics deal with the possibility of the existence of mathematical objects both finite and infinite.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm asking if my DNA can be traced back to one particular fish in the ocean.

No. At each evolutionary stage, the population involved would change over a number of generations, some features becoming accentuated, others diminished. It's theoretically possible that at one or more stages, the numbers might be reduced to just a few - or even a single parthenogenic individual, but the latter is very unlikely, and a bottleneck that extreme would probably be detectable in contemporary DNA comparisons.

Equally representative of who ... me? or someone else?

Every fish in the ancestral population would be equally represented genetically in the lineages of terrestrial creatures they gave rise to - including humans. It's not about individuals, but whole populations - species.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think he wants the exact species name of that Great Grandpappy fish you are referring to.

'Great Grandpappy' would be a good name

The idea that there could be a unique genetic connection between particular individuals of populations separated by over 350 million years of evolution, suggests a serious failure to grasp how evolution works - unless it's just a facetious tease...

 

[Radrook]

'Great Grandpappy' would be a good name

The idea that there could be a unique genetic connection between particular individuals of populations separated by over 350 million years of evolution, suggests a serious failure to grasp how evolution works - unless it's just a facetious tease...

It was just a joke which I thought would be obvious and taken as a joke and not be transformed into a major issue. As for the evolution framework into which all is now being fitted or else unceremoniously discarded as irrelevant, I prefer not to get entangled in interminable labyrinthine atheistic arguments which wind up nowhere but in the original mutual disagreement.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I just want to see if it's appropriate to consider us "fish".

Not really. We may be descended from fish, but, like many other creatures descended from fish, we no longer have the characteristic features of fish. It makes more practical sense to group species by their similarities and relationships, in hierarchical fashion, so the groups become more generalised and encompassing higher up the hierarchy, in line with the features they have in common with descendants. This way, we can use these taxonomic descriptions identify and differentiate between different creatures by name and position in the ancestral hierarchy.

After all, if we're mammals, primates, vertebrates, and Darwin knows what all else ... does the trail go through fish?

Yes. The species of fish ancestral to humans would have backbones in common with all their descendants, so the encompassing group (subphylum) is the 'vertebrates', which includes five derived classes of fish, and amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals - all descended from early fish.

It's worth remembering that a taxonomy isn't necessarily static, and there are different taxonomies. They're ways of categorizing creatures in useful ways; ancestral relationships are just one way.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It was just a joke which I thought would be obvious and taken as a joke and not be transformed into a major issue.

In a POE-rich forum like this, judicious use of smilies is helpful when you're not being serious [] - which is why I used one when responding to your suggestion.

But the second paragraph of my comment was referring to AV's line of questioning; I'm sorry if you thought it was aimed at you - I probably should have put "The AV's idea that...".

 

[AV1611VET]

... and a bottleneck that extreme would probably be detectable in contemporary DNA comparisons.

I don't think you understand my question.

Does my DNA have a trail back to a particular fish in the ocean?

Would my wife's DNA have a trail back to another fish in the same ocean?

While your DNA would have a trail back to another fish in the same ocean?

Etc. and so on.

It's not about a bottleneck.

My DNA goes back through my dad, my wife's DNA goes back through her dad, your DNA goes back through your dad.

Three different dads ... three different fish.

 

[Radrook]

In a POE-rich forum like this, judicious use of smilies is helpful when you're not being serious [] - which is why I used one when responding to your suggestion.

But the second paragraph of my comment was referring to AV's line of questioning; I'm sorry if you thought it was aimed at you.

Thanks for the advice about the similes. My fault!

 

[AV1611VET]

But the second paragraph of my comment was referring to AV's line of questioning; I'm sorry if you thought it was aimed at you.

I can assure you my question is as serious as a heart transplant.

If people want me to believe I am an ape, then they'd better be willing to want me to believe I am a fish as well.

Walk your talk, even if it leads to the ocean.

I could make this even more interesting and go beyond fish to plants.

But as I said before, I already have a thread where I asked if we were plants.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't think you understand my question.

Does my DNA have a trail back to a particular fish in the ocean?

Would my wife's DNA have a trail back to another fish in the same ocean?

While your DNA would have a trail back to another fish in the same ocean?

Etc. and so on.

No.

It's not about a bottleneck.

That was the only way I could think of the DNA of one particular ancestral fish connecting to you - but it would also connect to every other terrestrial vertebrate.

My DNA goes back through my dad, my wife's DNA goes back through her dad, your DNA goes back through your dad.

Three different dads ... three different fish.

You don't have to go back very far in human family trees before you find common ancestors - by about 1,000 years, almost all of us share ancestors. See So You're Related to Charlemagne? Go back 350 million years, and there's no chance of any unique link between an ancestral individual and a particular descendant.

But bottlenecks are also relevant - a population bottleneck that reduced the population well below the current number of humans would mean that, regardless of other genetic mixing, the probability of a unique genetic link between a current human and a pre-bottleneck individual would be reduced in proportion to the difference in current and bottleneck population sizes. It is thought that there has been at least one serious human population bottleneck, reducing to a few thousand individuals.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If people want me to believe I am an ape, then they'd better be willing to want me to believe I am a fish as well.

I hope my explanation helped you see why we're not called fish despite being descended from fish.

I could make this even more interesting and go beyond fish to plants.

But as I said before, I already have a thread where I asked if we were plants.

When you go back to the origins of plants and animals, the distinction becomes blurred; they too diverged from a common ancestor. Incidentally, mammals evolved before flowering plants, which are relative newcomers.

 

[AV1611VET]

Mamma mia.

 

[Radrook]

We descended from wotz? Leafy Vegetables?

Well, now I understand why we humans says that we has a green thumb, dat we shakes like a leaf, dat we throws down roots and dat we bee sturdy as an oaks.

We be descended from wotz? FISH?

Well, now I understand why we humans says that we beez, dead in the water or beez feeling like a fish outer dah water.

Heh! Ke heh! Well Gus, I guess ‘tall goes back to when we all wuz once carefree garden flowers and felicitous pond fish in Eden till dat cantankerous crazy coconut tempted us.

Numb sayin?

 

[xianghua]

Lol, no. A fish cannot evolve into a human. Either your understanding of evolution is negligible, or your expression of it is lamentably sloppy.

it can. in step wise and in many generations. unless you dont believe in evolution.