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.
The way I understand it, they were able to predict what would be found in the universe mathematically before they found it. What is it about our brains that we know this is how things work unless our brains are part of the design?Mathematics, even without the numbers, still exists, as a set of axioms or patterns, that, to me, indicate design, etc, and therefore, also an original designer or programmer or creator, etc...
And I think there is a very, very good reason why we do use math, or can use math, for just about "anything/everything", etc...
This is in my signature, but I'm going to put it here:
"Order/Patterns/Laws (especially mathematical ones) are (direct) evidence of design."
And therefore an original designer, etc, etc, etc...
To me anyway...
God Bless!
It is all part of the design...The way I understand it, they were able to predict what would be found in the universe mathematically before they found it. What is it about our brains that we know this is how things work unless our brains are part of the design?
There's a difference between a computer and life. Life isn't a computer. It's Life itSelf that created you. As we look around at the diversity of life forms, both past and present, with its various consciousness and niches, yes Life has the capacity to create an infinite variety of life forms.God created me in my mother's womb. Yes, he use already existing material, but life in itself isn't some force able to do whatever it pleases. That's like saying if I create a computer capable of reproducing, the computer itself is a creator.
Life is creative. Life isn't static, it's dynamic with infinite potential in forms and consciousness.I look around and I see the handiwork of a loving Creator everywhere. Life isn't an intelligent entity capable of that.
Life is creative. Life isn't static, it's dynamic with infinite potential in forms and consciousness.
Again, life is Creative. It's in it's Creativity is where it's intelligence sits. Life is the very essence of this Creation, it's not a separate entity, it's whole and united and One with all that there is. It's not at all like the separate entity sitting apart from this Creation that you see in a controlling judgmental God.No God is creative. Whose life? Humans are creative. Life has no inherent intelligence. According to evolution theory it only changes randomly. That's actually built in adaptation. You talk as if life were an entity in itself.
Life isn't even a entity. This all sounds very new age, and not scientific at all.Again, life is Creative. It's in it's Creativity is where it's intelligence sits. Life is the very essence of this Creation, it's not a separate entity, it's whole and united and One with all that there is. It's not at all like the separate entity sitting apart from this Creation that you see in a controlling judgmental God.
So I say the laws of nature have always been what they are, and your logic implies that (unless you're using a special pleading fallacy) the creator you describe must also have had a cause, e.g. another creator, which must also have had a cause, and so on ad infinitum; but if your creator doesn't need a cause, then neither do the laws of nature.The fact that there are laws of nature is the evidence.
And I thought Henri Poincare was the father of Chaos theory not Satan.
Guess the history books will have to be rewritten.
What about the probabilistic nature of Quantum Mechanics; did Beelzebub come up with the theory?
I'm countering your suggestion of a creator first cause with the suggestion that the universe has always existed (though obviously not in its present form, which is constantly changing) with the same fundamental laws (from which our everyday natural laws are emergent).Nothing in nature is static. But you are claiming what? That the universe always existed in its present form? That's not very scientific of you
So you have eternal matter. That you believe in by faith. I'm not seeing the logic.I'm countering your suggestion of a creator first cause with the suggestion that the universe has always existed (though obviously not in its present form, which is constantly changing) with the same fundamental laws (from which our everyday natural laws are emergent).
What makes you think that's 'not very scientific'? Plenty of eminent physicists and cosmologists think it's a possible explanation.
Except that a physical universe full if indestructible matter/energy is already in evidence. Extra-universal sources of creation are not.So you have eternal matter. That you believe in by faith. I'm not seeing the logic.
Scientific laws only describe nature. You are conflating human laws with scientific ones. They are two different things. Scientific laws are descriptive and no one has ever shown a need for an author. Human laws are proscriptive and it is well understood why we have authors of those.You can't have scientific laws without someONE creating those laws. Without a first cause, nothing would exist.
You are not seeing the logic, that is clear. It is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of evidence.So you have eternal matter. That you believe in by faith. I'm not seeing the logic.
I don't believe it, I don't know the answer - but I'm suggesting it as a simpler alternative to positing an inexplicable creator. IOW I think it's a better hypothesis, by reasonable criteria for a good explanation.So you have eternal matter. That you believe in by faith. I'm not seeing the logic.
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?