discipler
- Started
- Last post
- 151 Responses
- mrdobolina0
I watch all of that stuff whenever I can get my hands on it.
mega-churches are crazy shit.
places are big as the superdome.
- ********0
Discipler - just interested in your thoughts on such mathematical entities such as ZC+2, the Mandlebrot set, in regard to your interpretation of irreducible complexity, intelligent design and the 'natural' relationships that are expressed at the boundaries of chaos and order as you see them ?
Does the appearance of these patterns in anyway represent to you intelligent design that you posit is the force majeure of biological systems ?
- lowimpakt0
i want to know more about genetic mutations and gentic engineering in the context of ID.
- ********0
just a guess:
- ********0
ah, no.
- lowimpakt0
www.thoughtsonsuch mathematicalentitiessuch s ZC+2,theMandlebrot set, n regardtoyourinterpretationof irreduciblecomplexity.com/the answer
- ********0
HAHAHAHA :)
tou fucking che, my friend.
- discipler0
mikotondria, i'm not familiar with either of those terms/concepts/foods.
- ********0
urhm, this sort of thing..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man…
- discipler0
ah, nope. ain't got a clue about that one.
- xaoscontrol0
wake up, dobs. just watch local access...plenty of preachers EVERY day.
You know there's a digital Satellite system that caters to the christian crowd? THey have all the same types of channels you'd find on Dish or DirecTv but they're all christian oriented. Music channles, kids channels, news..movies..etc. Hey, if it works for them, great. Though I wonder if most that would subscribe to a system like that are doing it to avoid 'the bad stuff' for fear of being influenced by it or if they just don't like it. I can understand the latter, but if you're avoiding, how do you grow stronger against it if you avoid it?
- ********0
ah ok.. Well basically it maps a junction between order and chaos within a mathematical system..
It is a map of whether or not a certain variant of a mathematical equation can be proved to be stable or not.
These patterns were discovered only recently (late 20thC), and were utterly unpredicted, well worth researching.
Do creationsists/theists have any position with regard to mathematics ? i would have thought it prudent to arm yourself, with mathematics underlying as it does, the basis of all physical and therefore biological systems..
Were we able to demostrate that biological complexity and it genesis could be demostrated mathematically, would you alter your position, or merely say that mathematics itself is another aspect of intelligent design.
To your mind, is math a creation of and within the universe or as fundamental as your god ?
- xaoscontrol0
i didn't target that first statement in a negative way, dobs. Just an FYI. :)
- discipler0
ok. well, if you peruse the list of board members at Discovery institute, Idea Center and ARN, you'll find there are physicists and mathemeticians. The specific exposure I've had in the realm of mathematics and I.D. is how physicists like Robin Cook have demonstrated the mathematical impossibility of random natural processes producing the components of organic life. If you do a search on the official sites for Robin Cook and/or mathematics, I'm sure you'll find some information. I know that Dr. William Dembski has dealt with it too: http://www.designinference.com/
As for the issue of mathematical principles being created, I would say yes. The laws of physics were set in place by the designer, ultimately.
- ********0
ok, I understand where you're coming from..
I have in the recent past adopted almost a similar position, theologically with regard to physical laws..
To my mind, if there is a god, then surely its greatest expression is as the laws of physics - the most irreducible set of facts we have discovered..
The quest for a theory of everything, namely an equation that can describe all states and interactions of energy/matter/time has been made famous by our mutual friend who labelled it The Mind Of God..
Thus we come to the point in hand - armed with this equation, which may be discovered 2moro, or might take a millenia, it might never be found, how wouuld you distinguish your position from that of a physicist who calls this equation god ?
This is surely the prime essence of all existence, it is from this that all things are derived, this is anything, is worthy of the title God..
If all we are lacking in this scheme is a few details on some complex, but not incomprehensible chemistry/thermodynamics/turbule... then where in this scheme does your idea of a 'supernatural' force fit ?
Why do you not entertain the idea that knowing the fundamental, most basic prinicple of how matter, energy and time behave, that the more complex behaviors cannot be solved ?
Were someone able to demostrate to you that living systems can arise from 'merely' the more complex ramifications of this theory, would the universe seem less full to you ? Would life lose its wonder, its magic and awesomeness ?
I believe fervently that it can be explained and modelled in theory, indeed that only adds to the wonder of the world, that it has organised itself into these irreducibly complex living systems that have the ability to understand themselves.
That, to me, is God creating man in his own image - our explicit coneptualisation and quantification of the 'the unversal' meta-experience is becoming close to God, not further away, which to be honest, finding gaps in the understanding and papering over with 2000 year old middle-eastern philosophy is.
God/Universe/Self reveals itself to us through beauty and understanding, as physical and mathematical laws..
God IS the laws of physics, including and especially those artefacts of same that are Self-reflective..
- ********0
I watch all of that stuff whenever I can get my hands on it.
mega-churches are crazy shit.
places are big as the superdome.
mrdobolina
(Aug 15 05, 09:28)I've been to many. In fact, believe or not, I attended an Assembly of God (Born-Again) church up until I was 18, although baptized Catholica. That explains much in terms of the Bible stuff that's embedded into my brain.
- version30
-1 for discipler for believing in life after death. firm commitment does not make anything true
i think i can, i think i can does not apply here
i know people similar to discipler in real life and the worst part is you cant just click to the next response
*agrees more with scarabin than anyine one else on this subject
- discipler0
I hear where you are coming from, mikotondria. There are some knee-jerk problems I have with the notion that God is essentialy the equation...
First, I believe that the design demonstrates both volition and personality in the designer. Volition in that, there was a specific point in the past when time and space came into being out of nothing (and it's essential that we grasp the impact of true "nothingness") which indicates a cognizant decision of the will to bring forth said universe from nothing. And personality in the character and complexity and "artwork", if you will, of the creation. Additionally, the rediculous precision with which the physical laws of our planet have been fine-tuned (a somewhat recent discovery) and it's strategic position in our galaxy with a vantage point for studying the rest of the universe, would indicate purposeful design. Then there's the issue of human consciousness and the deep longings we experience which are unique to us and which would indicate a greater consciousness in whose "likeness" we were fashioned, perhaps. Also, when you consider the sequential coding of DNA - this is information. And our experience thus far has not demonstrated how a non-cognizant "force" could generate sequential information. Finally, by positing that a core substance or equation is the author of all things, one really only pushes the issue of origins back a step because it's hard to envision a line of demarcation that would seperate the equation from the rest of the physical / mathematical laws that have no use outside of time and space. I would suggest that any core "string" or particle that is ultimately unearthed would simply point to an intelligent designer who used a singular fundamental material for all of his creation.
- discipler0
as always, a compelling and convincing insight, version3.
- version30
why would i try to convince you discipler?
i guess that should have read:
+1 for his convictions
-2 for his need to convince otherslike i've said before, those who believe in god try to get you to change, those who don't, don't care either way
the repitition becomes boring is all, a broken record i don't want to listen to