Mathematician proves Atheism to be a false idea

I've done some research. Nothing too extensive, but my rejection of the bible quite simply comes down to the fact that I have never found any adequate reason to believe it. There's plenty beyond that, of course (like how you have to take your pick between completely reinterpreting passages to mean what they quite clearly don't or accepting that a divinely inspired book somehow has some really grave errors in it), but that's really the core of it. That this book is divinely inspired is an incredible supernatural claim, with extremely profound effects on, well, everything, and as such I require a very stringent burden of proof. As Sagan said: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the claims that the bible is divinely inspired are pretty damn extraordinary. I've seen no reasonable burden of proof met. Even just basic scrutiny offers very little. I am, as always, open to arguments, but the vast majority I've heard from various sources (prophecies in the bible, historical sources of Jesus, apostles being killed for their faith, etc.) would be not really that convincing even if we weren't talking about something with such a tall burden of proof to fulfill.

Eh, more a rational suspension of belief until evidence is shown. I'd liken it to intensive study of the emperor's new clothes.

Well, if that's all that's being asserted, rather than that it's the perfectly true word of god, then I have no problem. I'd personally describe the bible as a bunch of bronze-age history, with a ton of unverified or falsified mythology thrown in. It's like a storybook, and should be taken as just that.

You think that it's frustrating when atheists do that? Try when Christians do that. But this is another one of my problems. It's apparently so clear to many that certain passages in the bible are allegory, but somehow, nobody can really agree on which ones. In some cases, it's not even clear what the allegory is supposed to be. What is Noah's Ark supposed to mean? "Disobey god and he'll murder everyone"? I mean, I'm no genius at literary analysis (C- in lit class, thank god for the easy questions), but even I can tell that it's often quite a stretch to say with any degree of certainty that the given passage in the bible is metaphorical.

I didn't say that I rejected the bible, I said that I rejected that the bible was the inspired divine truth, or indeed anything more than a man-made book with a gigantic PR department.

 

I agree that one can make the case that reality is digital, but I don't see how that changes anything for the discussion. We can't say for sure that reality is digital, but we are sure that reality can be approximated digitally.

The golden ratio is a fairly "simple" number, to use poorly defined words. The ratio is the solution to the really quite simple equation x^2=x+1, and since that equation involves only simple instances of simple concepts, it is quite likely to turn up every now and then. The Fibonacci fraction is an example of this. The appearance in the Pascal triangle can mostly be attributed to the fact that we've chosen quite an odd method of calculating it (the diagonals in the picture don't make quite as much sense if you take away all the lines) and even then, we kind of expect the number to turn up every now and again in discrete mathematics.

 

"Math!"..I'm out.

 

http://randommusingsbykevin.blogspot.com/2013/03/reality-isnt-what-you-think-you-live-in.html

In response to this

I think there's a sort of circular reasoning to this that makes it hard to make a good case for the "simulation hypothesis". The big problem for me is that all of our computers that model given behaviors are made by programmers who use scientific measurements to make said simulations. In other words, Skyrim looks so much like Sweden because the people who made Skyrim had seen pictures of Sweden. None of that would prove anything about actual Sweden. What it shows is that given photographs and 3D rendering software, people can make a pretty good approximation of a location. Our computers synchronize themselves with a clock -- this has nothing to do with the physics of the computer, it's about synchronizing the GPU with the CPU so you don't end up with an odd lag time between a command and the display of the results. It would be physically possible to build a computer that doesn't do that, however it wouldn't be to much fun to play with because the commands you type would be shown long after the original command had been given. Again, that doesn't imply that a simulated reality would need a "clock" of any sort. As for the big bang being a "boot up" I think that's a bit too much -- the whole thing sounds a bit more like a decompression of some sort -- the universe was all in the ... whatever it was, and when it popped, it expanded into what we see. It doesn't require the universe to "boot up" to get that effect, it could be a compressed old universe left over from a big crunch, it could be stuff from another universe. We don't know, so calling it a boot-up sounds a bit premature.

 

Didn't DentalFloss write that? It's hilariously nonsensical, IMO.

 

You shouldn't expect any direct worldly evidence of other-worldly matters. There are, however, plenty of keys that point towards a greater reality.

Besides allegory/metaphor, scripture can be full of contradictions, absurdities, and repulsive immoralities. These were put there as a blind, a cloak of the hidden meanings so as to confound the profane, the abusers of power. You would be surprised just how well this process is orchestrated.

Noah's ark and the Flood are no more mysterious and nonsensical than Jonah's whale or going to/going from Egypt or Babylon.

There are often multiple interpretations of a passage, among which one or more can be found satisfactory according to recognizable themes.

Aside from Cupid Dave's approach, the only other workable resolution of the Bible's quirks that I know of is Theosophy. It is a distillation of the essence of several major religions. It gives a clear shot of the big picture. You might find it worthwhile.

 

Such as?

 

As far as the Fibonacci Sequence and it's relation to Nature...this is neither a surprise or a revelation.

For some idiot to claim it is some kind a proof to the existence of a GOD is like saying...."HEY! Did you ever notice whenever there is a numerical quantity existing in Nature larger than 1 that a 2 is always present?"

Idiocy.

AboveAlpha

 

Whenever I hear something like this, I harken back to the glory days of Thunderf00t, with this "discussion" between him and VenomFangX:

VFX: "Take this ball. This is the Materialist's worldview. Notice how much there is outside the ball? But they're stuck in this ball, and they can't see beyond it."
Tunderf00t: "Um, PCS, that ball is observable reality - everything we can ever demonstrate to exist. We have a word for that outside of that ball - Fantasy."

And you'd be surprised how easy it is to do this with any book. If you're willing to assume that the actual meaning is hidden behind thirty layers of allegory and reserved only for a select few with exactly the right interpretation which has nothing to do with what is actually written there beyond cherry-picked tangents. I'm... not that taken in by the whole thing.

But this is precisely the problem.

 

1) Good, we agree that Reality is digital, and the Pascal Triangle incorporates rows of powers of two, or the number system to the Base 2.
This can be seen as the reason man can image this almighty power of Reality the is the lord over us all.

If we examine the Fibonacci Series the way Fibonacci presented it originally, concerning rabbits which had rabbit every month, it becomes clear that our Brain cells grew exactly this same way as one cell mothered the next in mitosis.




Thus my point is that our computer/binary brain is able to "understand" Reality because both use the same Fibonacci Platform.

This makes sense in Genesis 1:26 when we read it with Fibonacci, binary numbers, and Pascal in our thoughts:


2) Euler's Equation is far from simple, though it does use all five of the mathematical constants of importance.


x^2-x-1 - 0

If you research this you will possibly see that Euler's Equation written as above is the mathematical expression that explains everything and represents the Grand Theory of Everything, (Einstein unfulfilled quest before he died), since almost all analytical Mathematics can be derived from this, and it is Analytical Math which man uses as the language of the Science by which he explains everything.

3) The "diagonals" are there whether we take away the lines the guide your attention to them or not.

 

sure it is.

It means that mankind can describe nature, with numbers. Most have a hard time with comprehending that 'apocalypse'.

To comprehend the math that can define nature to the numbers/letter, that would be to comprehend 'god' as nature itself.

It's stupid easy

 

Sorry, I might have used a bad wording here. I don't agree that reality necessarily is digital, only that it can be approximated to be. I agree that Pascal's triangle incorporates rows of powers of two (although I'd prefer if you used something more specific than the word "incorporate", but I think I know what you mean). I'm also not sure what you mean by "the number system to the Base 2", but I think I would agree if I understood the wording.

Not sure if I follow this step, can you break the logic down to its pieces? I guess if all you're arguing is that we are bound to reality, then I would probably agree, but I'm not yet convinced that the logic you've presented is sound.

I don't see how that would be the reason. I'm not sure what you mean by "Fibonacci Platform". Whatever the basis of the universe is, it can be approximated with a binary or any other digital system. Thus, a binary or for that matter trinary, hexadecimal or arbitrary system would be able to understand it nonetheless.

And to what extent do you mean our brains "use" this Fibonacci platform? The example is about the pace at which neurons are formed, not how they work together. Even that is naught but a mathematical approximation, for instance, the example requires neurons to never die and to multiply forever, clearly not accurate for full sized brains.

No.

Or rather, not more than without it. Simple systems will follow simple rules. Simple rules, such as the one presented in the picture, give rise to numbers like the golden ratio. No magic there.

Uhm, what do you mean? That's not Euler's equation. Or at least not the one famous for including the five constants of importance.

Well, yes, of course, but without the lines, it becomes less obvious which lines to draw, which sums to take. I'll gladly admit that it is interesting that we found the Fibonacci sequence in the triangle, but it's hardly miraculous enough to draw conclusions further than that.

 

What we are saying is that computers can now hear our commands, show us pictures of what they see, feel the temperature and operate external equipment which can basic report on all the sensory reactions we experience because of the digital mathematics that tells them how to do this.

Though man still has the consciousness and free will that artificial intelligence still lacks, this computer based image of the Reality within which all existences explains how our mind creates the same image with digit mathematics using the neurons similar to the way computers use transistors.

Fibonacci's explanation of rabbit multiplication, applied to the neurons that develop our brain explain how this math shows up in nature and in our thinking.

 

oops..

I'm sorry.
I misspoke on that equation.

 

What I am saying is that due to the Fibonacci way neurons reproduce as the build up our brain they form arrays of base two numerical relationship as the diagonal lines bring to your attention.

I am saying that our brain develops like when we build an Operating System using transistors for a computer, simply by the nature Fibonacci mitosis of each cell splitting and form two cells as the brain forms and grows.



This complicated diagram is supposed to make it more clear, but I think this hard to explain unless you examine these graphics thoughtfully:

 

No worries. However, now it has very little to do with the discussion we were having.

 

Did the non-reproducing neurons in this diagram just die, or what?

Also, I have to ask, are you making these diagrams yourself, or getting them from a source that you aren't citing?

 

The pics seem to be coming from:
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/

 

Ye4s, it sounds silly unless one assume god mean the force behind the ever changing reality of Nature, (not nature, but the force of change from second to second which produces a new reality).

This "new reality" or environment is almighty in its demand that we adapt to it.

As the brain recognizes this Reality, as it utilizes the binary number system inherent in the growth process which is Fibonacci in essence, man is constructing a mental picture as of that Reality which we call Truth.

In this way, it makes sense that Reality is God which fathers Truth, as if a son.

 

The neurons do not die.
The process of building the Brain begins with Stem Cells which know how to link up the networks for the particular organism which will use the evolved neurological associations established in the past.

These "software programs" run independently as center develop during the growth process.

 

Your numbers don't add up the way you're claiming if those non-reproducing neurons stick around.

Asking again, are you making these diagrams yourself or getting them from another source that you aren't citing? Swenson posted the source location, but I believe Tripod is just a webhost, so these could be coming from your own site for all we know.

 

Here is link to the site which has a more thorough over view of what I am saying here:
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/kofh/id40.html

 

The "numbers" add up.

It is the same as rabbits which Fibonacci used to illustrate the mathematic relationships here.He said that one rabbit had a baby every month, then as the baby matured and also had rabbits, the series would simple tell us how many rabbits were born each month thereafter.

The array of this series becomes a pyramid which is what Pascal explained.

 

Neurons aren't rabbits, though, they are cells. Cells don't replicate the same way animals do, bud. In fact, I'm not so sure that neurons replicate at all.

 

Well, they are when they are being formed. How that ties in with how the brain works has not been demonstrated in this argument yet, though.