From Math to God

@KellyJay said
You do not have evidence to back up your beliefs. I can not argue against some thing with no reasons, you actually require some casual reason for your beliefs that you can point to, to back up the claims!

Saying a process is repeating eternally isn’t evidence it repeats, that is just you saying it does.

Let us know when you have a transcendental causality detector up and running. Until then, you have no evidence that God manipulates molecules.

@KellyJay said
Stop replying to if you think I am not being honest with you.

Clearly you didn't read my post. We wont speak again.

@KellyJay said
https://youtu.be/Eqz6c0HZ8Rg

Long story short: tyring to prove God by the "first reason" argument. That has been discraded centuries ago (also from biblical scholars).

Fun fact: "God" is not to be proven at all. (If you adhere to christianity you should know that he wants belief).

Then: Math is of course a game played using a set of rules. It is not an independent truth. Math apart from what we norjmally use has been tried by people and is entertaing and sometimes even helpful for a given problem.
That we use "the math" we use is based on the fact that it is helpful in everydays life. And surprisingly useful for real real hard problems.

@Ponderable said
Long story short: tyring to prove God by the "first reason" argument. That has been discraded centuries ago (also from biblical scholars).

Fun fact: "God" is not to be proven at all. (If you adhere to christianity you should know that he wants belief).

Then: Math is of course a game played using a set of rules. It is not an independent truth. Math apart from what we ...[text shortened]... the fact that it is helpful in everydays life. And surprisingly useful for real real hard problems.

Did you watch it?

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
Clearly you didn't read my post. We wont speak again.

So be it.

@KellyJay said
Did you watch it?

After about 1 and a half minurte I tried to get the thing by skipping through.

As some others I am open to hear a thesis first.

@Ponderable said
After about 1 and a half minurte I tried to get the thing by skipping through.

As some others I am open to hear a thesis first.

An Atheist mathematician was pursuing his master’s when he read a paragraph in his mathematics textbook that enlightened his thinking, flipping his perspective. He was, before that event, asking people why they believed what they did, including himself. Every time anyone told him they believed something to be true, he would ask why, seeking answers.. He concluded that no one really knew anything because, in the end, they just made statements that left him still asking why.

@KellyJay said
An Atheist mathematician was pursuing his master’s when he read a paragraph in his mathematics textbook that enlightened his thinking, flipping his perspective. He was, before that event, asking people why they believed what they did, including himself. Every time anyone told him they believed something to be true, he would ask why, seeking answers.. He concluded that no o ...[text shortened]... really knew anything because, in the end, they just made statements that left him still asking why.

It is entirely possible that some person's worldview could be 'flipped', either way, a-theistic or theistic, by reading a math book. It has nothing to do with math. It could just as well happen by reading poetry or a weather map, or by experiencing a storm at sea. It's what theists call an epiphany and Buddhists call enlightenment.

Some questions just don't have answers. As Wittgenstein said, at some point the spade is turned. "God" is simply the point where your spade is turned, you won't ask any deeper questions beyond "God did it." You're the sort of person who cannot accept that some questions don't have answers, so "God did it" is your answer to those sorts of questions. So be it.

@Ponderable said
Long story short: tyring to prove God by the "first reason" argument. That has been discraded centuries ago (also from biblical scholars).

Fun fact: "God" is not to be proven at all. (If you adhere to christianity you should know that he wants belief).

Then: Math is of course a game played using a set of rules. It is not an independent truth. Math apart from what we ...[text shortened]... the fact that it is helpful in everydays life. And surprisingly useful for real real hard problems.

Torture numbers, and they'll tell you anything.

The average human has one testicle.

Also: the average human has one ovary.

But you won't find many specimens who actually have one testicle and one ovary!

@KellyJay said
An Atheist mathematician was pursuing his master’s when he read a paragraph in his mathematics textbook that enlightened his thinking, flipping his perspective. He was, before that event, asking people why they believed what they did, including himself. Every time anyone told him they believed something to be true, he would ask why, seeking answers.. He concluded that no o ...[text shortened]... really knew anything because, in the end, they just made statements that left him still asking why.

GIVE ME THAT STATEMENT

I am not interested in the life story and I don't know why you can't pose the main hypothesis on the table right away and back it up for the video for those who want all the back story.
What I got from skimming was that he was looking for the prime mover. A god proof that has been abandoned centuries ago.

@Ponderable said
GIVE ME THAT STATEMENT

I am not interested in the life story and I don't know why you can't pose the main hypothesis on the table right away and back it up for the video for those who want all the back story.
What I got from skimming was that he was looking for the prime mover. A god proof that has been abandoned centuries ago.

Yeah you assuming something about the link that is not true. Watch it or no, talking about a statement about it is not worth any efffort for anyone.

@KellyJay said
Don't bother answering anything I write. I no longer care what your opinions are of what I write or post, as you make up what I say and twist it to something you want it to mean. Then run off and tell others what I meant when you have no stinking idea.

Oh, now -- that comes across as rather controlling (and somewhat huffy).

Speaking of twisting, did you know that "GOD" in ROT13 is "TBQ"?

@KellyJay said
https://youtu.be/Eqz6c0HZ8Rg

I'll grant that his beard is neatly trimmed, but he's wearing a flannel shirt. I only gave it about 10 or 20 seconds.

In general, I feel that time is running out for me, so please don't waste my time!

Bullet points in text would be better.

@moonbus said
@KellyJay

A youtube link with no clue or summary, what's it's about? C'mon Kelly, you can do better than that.


But I will tell you this, whatever 'magic' your commentator thinks he sees in numbers, it's all in his own mind. Just like Kepler--who thought he'd proven why there could be only seven planets in the solar system, because there are exactly seven platonic solids. Correct math--rubbish cosmology.

Poor Pluto, though.

Was there some kind of neo-Platonic Keplerian revival a quarter of a century ago?

@Arkturos said
Poor Pluto, though.

Was there some kind of neo-Platonic Keplerian revival a quarter of a century ago?

At the time Kepler lived, only seven were known. Dunno about any revival.

As far as I am concerned, the definition of planet vs. dwarf-planet is arbitrary. Pluto has cleared its orbit of debris (unlike the asteroid belt) and has captured moons of it own, so Pluto qualifies as a planet in my book.