• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Answers in Genesis and fractals

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,998
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Numbers have existed from the beginning of creation, yet researchers have only recently discovered the hidden shapes that the Lord placed within them. Such beauty defies a secular explanation but confirms biblical creation.

....

God alone can take credit for mathematical truths, such as fractals. Such transcendent truths are a reflection of God’s thoughts. Therefore when we discover mathematical truths we are, in the words of the astronomer Johannes Kepler, “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” The shapes shown in the figures have been built into mathematics by the Creator of mathematics. We could have chosen different color schemes for the graphs, but we cannot alter the shape—it is set by God and His nature.

....

Evolution cannot account for fractals. These shapes have existed since creation and cannot have evolved, since numbers cannot change—the number 7 will never be anything but 7. But fractals are perfectly consistent with biblical creation. The Christian understands that there are transcendent truths because the Bible states many of them. A biblical creationist expects to find beauty and order in the universe, not only in the physical universe, but in the abstract realm of mathematics as well. This order and beauty is possible because there is a logical God who has imparted order and beauty into His universe.
This would be yet another reason why creationists would have their faith strengthened by assuming these are good reasons to believe.

Also:


55:12
...there is no answer from the bankrupt evolutionary atheistic camp as to why the physical universe obeys mathematical laws but it is exactly what the Christian would expect....
55:34
....numbers are abstract conceptions of quantity - concepts require a mind - numbers are a reflection of the way God thinks. The secular worldview cannot account for the existence and properties of numbers or mathematical truths....
 
Last edited:

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Numbers have existed from the beginning of creation, yet researchers have only recently discovered the hidden shapes that the Lord placed within them. Such beauty defies a secular explanation but confirms biblical creation.

....

God alone can take credit for mathematical truths, such as fractals. Such transcendent truths are a reflection of God’s thoughts. Therefore when we discover mathematical truths we are, in the words of the astronomer Johannes Kepler, “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” The shapes shown in the figures have been built into mathematics by the Creator of mathematics. We could have chosen different color schemes for the graphs, but we cannot alter the shape—it is set by God and His nature.

....

Evolution cannot account for fractals. These shapes have existed since creation and cannot have evolved, since numbers cannot change—the number 7 will never be anything but 7. But fractals are perfectly consistent with biblical creation. The Christian understands that there are transcendent truths because the Bible states many of them. A biblical creationist expects to find beauty and order in the universe, not only in the physical universe, but in the abstract realm of mathematics as well. This order and beauty is possible because there is a logical God who has imparted order and beauty into His universe.
This would be yet another reason why creationists would have their faith strengthened by assuming these are good reasons to believe.

Also:


55:12
...there is no answer from the bankrupt evolutionary atheistic camp as to why the physical universe obeys mathematical laws but it is exactly what the Christian would expect....
55:34
....numbers are abstract conceptions of quantity - concepts require a mind - numbers are a reflection of the way God thinks. The secular worldview cannot account for the existence and properties of numbers or mathematical truths....

Ugh... This is so wrong it hurts. Numerical systems absolutely extend and interact in increasingly complicated ways as a product of variances in their structures.

Fractals are literally just what you get when you operate a complex system with a fractional exponent.

Minds don't make math happen, math just is. If you want to worship Math or Langland's Philosophy as "god" though, that is not meaningful or useful: Math doesn't think.

Thinking merely is an implementation, an operation of and within math. Or, more accurately, the only way math thinks is as a mind in a reification of stuff within that mathematical system.

The objects of the large scale universe, however, do not have the necessary structural influence on each other in the right ways to be "a mind". Their relationship is chaotic, and does not operate meaningfully in organized weighted switching structures in a way that usefully influenced outcomes towards an organized goal, and even if it was on some vast scale holding various such processes, there is still no guarantee that it would be intelligent or kind or any such thing: minds are always born in what must be assumed by the mind as ignorance.

In many ways this equates to the reality behind "original sin", albeit a far different reality from what it was either originated as in it's conception or perverted to since.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,960
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Mathematics including fractals are human abstractions we superimpose over reality.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,959
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Numbers have existed from the beginning of creation, yet researchers have only recently discovered the hidden shapes that the Lord placed within them. Such beauty defies a secular explanation but confirms biblical creation.
This would be yet another reason why creationists would have their faith strengthened by assuming these are good reasons to believe.

Also:

God's mind looks like a butt. *hee hee*

Is AiG still a thing?
....numbers are abstract conceptions of quantity - concepts require a mind - numbers are a reflection of the way God thinks. The secular worldview cannot account for the existence and properties of numbers or mathematical truths....
Numbers don't exist. Numbers are tools we use to quantize the world we live in. They seem to say as much, but then manage to go on and hook god up to it.

This just reads like an Intelligent Design derivative.

Hmmm... let me try something.
....inches are abstract conceptions of distance - concepts require a mind - inches are a reflection of the way God thinks. The secular worldview cannot account for the existence and properties of inches or geometry....

*turning pages*

I'm also not seeing fractals in the Book of Genesis.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,998
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
I'm also not seeing fractals in the Book of Genesis.
At about 49:30 it talks about romanesco broccolli
600px-Romanesco_broccoli_%28Brassica_oleracea%29.jpg

and at 51:30 it talks about the Barnsley fern:
hqdefault.jpg


It is saying fractals appear in both math and the physical world....
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,859
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
[off-topic?]

excreationist mentioned Michael Barnsley. I don't know if his fractal method of image compression ever became widely used* but it has AMAZING elegance. (* - Microsoft used it in at least one product; do they still?)

Use of a "code-book" is one method of image compression. Each block in the image to be compressed is compared with code-book entries; if the block matches, say, code-book entry #59 the compressed file need contain only "59" (although parameters will be added to allow hue-changes, rotations, etc.) If you want to use a code-book optimized for the particular image, you may prepend the code-book to the compressed-image file, though this will consume space.

So "code-book" coding is so straightforward as to be trivial and boring. Barnsley's compression method is based on a code-book; what is so amazing about it?

In Barnsley's method, the image (scaled down) is its own code-book! Decompression requires iteration as image and code-book are gradually resolved together. (They're the same!)

 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,859
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Very interesting and impressive, excreationist! Thanks for the link.

To be clear, I was NOT touting Barnsley's IFS as necessarily a useful or productive method. I just think the idea of encoding an image using ITSELF as the codebook is a delicious idea!
 

SIB

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2022
Messages
127
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
For me the issue is "belief in some thing more" vs "their set of traits they give their god"

yeah, there looks to be something more, the data shows that, but the claim in things like "It likes when we fear it" or "sent its son to save us" or "we are born evil" is just silliness.

As to genesis ... Its literal interpretations that fail. Yeah, maybe your god created us ... then say it looks like it did it through evolution. I mean from hydrogen to humans the way it looks like "your god" is showing us it did it is fine by me.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,960
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
....numbers are abstract conceptions of quantity - concepts require a mind - numbers are a reflection of the way God thinks. The secular worldview cannot account for the existence and properties of numbers or mathematical truths....

Every time I get to thinking I can't get surprised by religion something like this pops up.

Is god's calculator algebraic or RPN?

Something I read in the Oxford bible commentray. The translation for creation narrative is murky in some places. One way to translate it is to say out of chaos god brought order. Not god created everything.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Is god's calculator algebraic or RPN?
It operates on the basis of Langland's Philosophy, obviously.

This is obviously a joke, but not entirely since all math seems to operate thusly.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,960
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Is god's calculator algebraic or RPN?
It operates on the basis of Langland's Philosophy, obviously.

This is obviously a joke, but not entirely since all math seems to operate thusly.
Philosophy bakes no bread.
There is a philosophy to quote for any occasion.

Not a joke, obviously.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Is god's calculator algebraic or RPN?
It operates on the basis of Langland's Philosophy, obviously.

This is obviously a joke, but not entirely since all math seems to operate thusly.
Philosophy bakes no bread.
There is a philosophy to quote for any occasion.

Not a joke, obviously.
Read on what "Langland's Philosophy" is. It's also refered to as "Langland's Program". Your unawareness of this makes your post the butt of a joke you didn't see yourself walking into.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,960
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Is god's calculator algebraic or RPN?
It operates on the basis of Langland's Philosophy, obviously.

This is obviously a joke, but not entirely since all math seems to operate thusly.
Philosophy bakes no bread.
There is a philosophy to quote for any occasion.

Not a joke, obviously.
Read on what "Langland's Philosophy" is. It's also refered to as "Langland's Program". Your unawareness of this makes your post the butt of a joke you didn't see yourself walking into.
I took a look at the wiki page. Superfluous.

Calculators work because the technology evolved over time the work of many people and many generations. The genesus for the first Intel processor was a contract to make a chip for a 4 function calculator. Calculators do the same math you do by hand digitally, base 2. That is all. Trig functions are done by series expansions.

Mechanical calculators go back thousand of years. Not the least of which was the log log slide rule replaced by the scientific calculator. At least in engineering a calculator that did arbitrary powers and roots was a big deal.

No engineer or scientist I worked wit ever reverenced a philosophy or had a philosophy reference on the shelf at work.

Maybe looking at it through philosophy instead of mathematics is why you had trouble with your control system.

You can start a thread on the practicality and usefulness of phi;philosophy in modern science and technology.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Is god's calculator algebraic or RPN?
It operates on the basis of Langland's Philosophy, obviously.

This is obviously a joke, but not entirely since all math seems to operate thusly.
Philosophy bakes no bread.
There is a philosophy to quote for any occasion.

Not a joke, obviously.
Read on what "Langland's Philosophy" is. It's also refered to as "Langland's Program". Your unawareness of this makes your post the butt of a joke you didn't see yourself walking into.
I took a look at the wiki page. Superfluous.

Calculators work because the technology evolved over time the work of many people and many generations. The genesus for the first Intel processor was a contract to make a chip for a 4 function calculator. Calculators do the same math you do by hand digitally, base 2. That is all. Trig functions are done by series expansions.

Mechanical calculators go back thousand of years. Not the least of which was the log log slide rule replaced by the scientific calculator. At least in engineering a calculator that did arbitrary powers and roots was a big deal.

No engineer or scientist I worked wit ever reverenced a philosophy or had a philosophy reference on the shelf at work.

Maybe looking at it through philosophy instead of mathematics is why you had trouble with your control system.

You can start a thread on the practicality and usefulness of phi;philosophy in modern science and technology.
Well, you better call the Abel Prize commission and tell them to get their money back.

Please quit embarrassing yourself. Stop getting triggered by the word "philosophy", perhaps.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,998
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Also, I'll note that calculators work because silicon with transitional elements in it's crystal structure gate the flow of electrons when charge potentials are at certain thresholds and because when such structures are arranged in various ways they perform the basic logic of arithmetic.

It has nothing to do with evolving over time and everything to do with the object properties of the sum of it's parts in concert.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,959
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I'm also not seeing fractals in the Book of Genesis.
At about 49:30 it talks about romanesco broccolli

and at 51:30 it talks about the Barnsley fern:

It is saying fractals appear in both math and the physical world....
The outdoors isn't "The Book of Genesis".
Genesis 1 and 2 basically said God created plants and some plants seem to have fractals.
You pretty much can link anything to God if you reference Genesis 1 so nonsensically like that.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,998
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Genesis 1 and 2 basically said God created plants and some plants seem to have fractals.
You pretty much can link anything to God if you reference Genesis 1 so nonsensically like that.
In post #6 I gave two examples of plants that involve fractals. Genesis 1 and 2 say God created plants. That would mean he designed them.... and AiG was saying God designed fractals. I think the first part of that logic is quite straight forward rather than being arbitrary...

I thought you would have had more of a problem with things like:
"...Evolution cannot account for fractals....But fractals are perfectly consistent with biblical creation....."

But instead your objections include "The outdoors isn't "The Book of Genesis"."

In response to that creationists might say that Genesis talks about the creation of our world including the outdoors....
 
Last edited:

SIB

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2022
Messages
127
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Personally I believe they were smart back then. I think they put two genesis stories in there so that people would know not to take it literally. They thought to themselves "no way they (the future) can screw this up, we put two different stories in there."

A common mistake we often encounter in our lives. We forget that unlike emotional maturity, fundy-ism has no limits.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,998
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Personally I believe they were smart back then. I think they put two genesis stories in there so that people would know not to take it literally. They thought to themselves "no way they (the future) can screw this up, we put two different stories in there."
What YECs say about the two stories:
A common mistake we often encounter in our lives. We forget that unlike emotional maturity, fundy-ism has no limits.
The next step, which mainstream YEC organisations reject, is a belief in a flat earth.
That site attempts to debunk all of the numerous Bible verses that suggest a flat earth... but I don't think it brings up any verses that suggest a spherical earth. It only uses science to argue that the earth isn't flat.
 
Last edited:

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
Mathematics including fractals are human abstractions we superimpose over reality.
It's true, but we can devise ANY units of measure, of any length that takes one's fancy, a steve-bank unit, which would be a different measure of unit to the conventional, will still have a calculable expectancy, for example, the basic arithmetic can be determined or sussed out e.g., a cow in the field added to another cow, that's later aquired, is now twice the produce etc.. It just works naturally in reality.
 

lostone

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2021
Messages
122
Basic Beliefs
skeptic
Steve Tegmark would have us think that reality is mathematics, in which case the emergence of fractals as a basic part of nature would not be surprising.

Panpsychists / panentheists might say nature that builds itself.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,960
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
There are some who make math and science into a form of mysticism. Someone used the word trippy, it is appropriate.
 

lostone

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2021
Messages
122
Basic Beliefs
skeptic
Any sort of ultimate answer is trippy. We just don't know, and never will know many things. Even An ultimate answer would probably lead to more questions.
 

SIB

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2022
Messages
127
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Any sort of ultimate answer is trippy. We just don't know, and never will know many things. Even An ultimate answer would probably lead to more questions.
exactly. Thats why I like to see f the trippy response matches what we see and experience. Use our commonsense to sort through the noise.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,960
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Carl Sagan was about as trippy as it gets. Mako's scrince shows. NOVA shows.
 

lostone

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2021
Messages
122
Basic Beliefs
skeptic
Yeah, Sagan was all of that - The Templeton Foundation must have loved him
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,130
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Mathematics including fractals are human abstractions we superimpose over reality.
It's true, but we can devise ANY units of measure, of any length that takes one's fancy, a steve-bank unit, which would be a different measure of unit to the conventional, will still have a calculable expectancy, for example, the basic arithmetic can be determined or sussed out e.g., a cow in the field added to another cow, that's later aquired, is now twice the produce etc.. It just works naturally in reality.
What are you talking about? If there's one cow in the field, and another walks in and increases the count to two, that means Godditit? Do you realize how absurd that sounds?

Numbers are abstractions created by human minds to describe some aspects of reality. How can this fact be extrapolated to the arguments made by AiG? Can you explain please? Do you even understand AiG's position?
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,960
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
For Christians all things must include god.

Cosmology and science in the RCC histrory had to allow for god. In the 90s the pope wrote that evolution may be part of god's plan, in the face of overwhelming evidence for evolution.

I think out r iconic scientist Newton used god of the gaps.
 

SIB

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2022
Messages
127
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
For Christians all things must include god.

Cosmology and science in the RCC histrory had to allow for god. In the 90s the pope wrote that evolution may be part of god's plan, in the face of overwhelming evidence for evolution.

I think out r iconic scientist Newton used god of the gaps.
Its not that there is a god or not. Its the traits of the thing that are in question. And the issue of Christians saying "The god must be a Christian god." is what is problematic. Well, using observations to support the claim anyway.

The belief in something more is far more reliable than the reverse. But it is not a deity that had to send its son to save us.
 

lostone

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2021
Messages
122
Basic Beliefs
skeptic
Christian logic often seems to me to work like this...we found a tomb in Jerusalem! It must be the tomb of Jesus! We have proved the Bible is true!
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,998
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Christian logic often seems to me to work like this...we found a tomb in Jerusalem! It must be the tomb of Jesus! We have proved the Bible is true!
Then there's this:
1 Corinthians 3:18-19
Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”

Atheists might seem to be logical and wise but if you want to be saved you need to use logic that seems like foolishness....
 

SIB

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2022
Messages
127
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Christian logic often seems to me to work like this...we found a tomb in Jerusalem! It must be the tomb of Jesus! We have proved the Bible is true!
I love "But he had to send its son to save us or we'd be lost."

I am like, maybe he sent a math book to show us how to save ourselves." aka Noak's ark.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,612
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Christian logic often seems to me to work like this...we found a tomb in Jerusalem! It must be the tomb of Jesus! We have proved the Bible is true!
Then there's this:
1 Corinthians 3:18-19
Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”

Atheists might seem to be logical and wise but if you want to be saved you need to use logic that seems like foolishness....
Or perhaps someone who wrote to the Corinthians knew that to become wise, you have to first accept that you are wrong, for feeling yourself to be right is almost certainly walking foolishly into wrongness with your eyes closed.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,960
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
The difficulty is always in practicing what you preach, at least if you are human.

Matthew 23:1-12
“You must be careful to do everything [the Pharisees] tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”Mar 25, 2020

Who said practice what you preach?


But the first expression of the saying came two centuries before Matthew in the works of the Roman playwright, Titus Maccius Plautus. 'Practice yourself what you preach' appears in the comedy, Asinaria, Act 3, Scene 3.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,998
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Christian logic often seems to me to work like this...we found a tomb in Jerusalem! It must be the tomb of Jesus! We have proved the Bible is true!
I love "But he had to send its son to save us or we'd be lost."
Apparently if he didn't send his son (which is also himself) everyone would go to hell forever - and most people are still going there anyway.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
1,998
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Christian logic often seems to me to work like this...we found a tomb in Jerusalem! It must be the tomb of Jesus! We have proved the Bible is true!
Then there's this:
1 Corinthians 3:18-19
Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”

Atheists might seem to be logical and wise but if you want to be saved you need to use logic that seems like foolishness....
Or perhaps someone who wrote to the Corinthians knew that to become wise, you have to first accept that you are wrong, for feeling yourself to be right is almost certainly walking foolishly into wrongness with your eyes closed.
Through faith you can "know" the Truth that Jesus in his infinite love saved you. They just appear to be foolish to those with fleshly wisdom.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
Mathematics including fractals are human abstractions we superimpose over reality.
It's true, but we can devise ANY units of measure, of any length that takes one's fancy, a steve-bank unit, which would be a different measure of unit to the conventional, will still have a calculable expectancy, for example, the basic arithmetic can be determined or sussed out e.g., a cow in the field added to another cow, that's later aquired, is now twice the produce etc.. It just works naturally in reality.
What are you talking about? If there's one cow in the field, and another walks in and increases the count to two, that means Godditit? Do you realize how absurd that sounds

Obviously It goes without saying; naturally I would take to the belief, God created everything, as a theist .. but however, that's not what I said now is it? Do you mean technically I said, "Goddit?" Well regarding the post you previously quoted of mine, I have not said that counting cows was evidence or proof of God! I was talking about, what I still think amazing - for example, humans who are isolated far from each other - who would be counting their cows, goats or llama's etc.. - would find themselves coming up with the same basic arithmetic principles, whch is bound to be discovered universally.



Numbers are abstractions created by human minds to describe some aspects of reality. How can this fact be extrapolated to the arguments made by AiG? Can you explain please? Do you even understand AiG's position?

I know you're 'itching to go'.. responding to my posts, but don't be too excited, just read the above.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
Christian logic often seems to me to work like this...we found a tomb in Jerusalem! It must be the tomb of Jesus! We have proved the Bible is true!
Then there's this:
1 Corinthians 3:18-19
Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”

Atheists might seem to be logical and wise but if you want to be saved you need to use logic that seems like foolishness....

Yes you do have an interesting perspective of verses. Imo, It means, like someone professing to be "wise" when they're not actually wise, who is therefore foolish. Context that may be helpful, or stating the obvious: Prophets are known to be wise and are never called foolish, but boastful and the prideful are.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,959
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Mathematics including fractals are human abstractions we superimpose over reality.
It's true, but we can devise ANY units of measure, of any length that takes one's fancy, a steve-bank unit, which would be a different measure of unit to the conventional, will still have a calculable expectancy, for example, the basic arithmetic can be determined or sussed out e.g., a cow in the field added to another cow, that's later aquired, is now twice the produce etc.. It just works naturally in reality.
What are you talking about? If there's one cow in the field, and another walks in and increases the count to two, that means Godditit? Do you realize how absurd that sounds

Obviously It goes without saying; naturally I would take to the belief, God created everything, as a theist .. but however, that's not what I said now is it? Do you mean technically I said, "Goddit?" Well regarding the post you previously quoted of mine, I have not said that counting cows was evidence or proof of God! I was talking about, what I still think amazing - for example, humans who are isolated far from each other - who would be counting their cows, goats or llama's etc.. - would find themselves coming up with the same basic arithmetic principles, whch is bound to be discovered universally.
Yeah, that isn't accurate at all. Math was developed and then some other group of people saw it and adapted to it. Babylonians originated Algebra. Geometry was mainly the Greeks. Calculus was developed by two people in non-isolated circumstances in western Europe. These things didn't come into existence across the globe independently.

Heck, base 10 numbers wasn't the only base number system developed on by early groups, by far!
 
Top Bottom