Scientific proof that God exists? - page 281.

bl4kjaguar

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Good day to everyone; I am bumping this thread because I have posted a lot of truth here.

For some reason, the joint and BADecker have yet to respond to my posts.

I will not stop posting the truth about man and God in this thread; it is too important!

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on April 05, 2015, 06:12:23 PM

The joint,

You may wish to read my latest posts and references to better understand the form of the proof.

All atheists are humanists; also, the Eisenbeiss case strongly supports survival, which humanists reject, so I conclude that all atheists are mistaken.

Further, we now know that life is more than just complicated chemistry and this also undermines humanism.

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on March 26, 2015, 08:57:17 PM

BADecker,

I advise you not to call my GOD the devil until you know EXACTLY what is going on.

God's messenger Hatonn delivers a message that is both literal and rational; this is what a spiritual teaching should look like.

By the way, I still disagree with you about a "jealous/wrathful God"; God is love, and you have called my God the Devil without even so much as pointing out where God's messenger is telling you to do evil.

I am making this post so that others may also share TRUTH in this thread.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

No scientific proof that the joint exists.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on April 05, 2015, 06:12:23 PM

Quote from: the joint on April 04, 2015, 08:45:40 PM

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on April 04, 2015, 08:38:52 PM

Yo 'joint', how about adequately addressing this thread and the comments I have made about the Eisenbeiss case and other comments? Do you need a recap? I never heard an adequate reply to my comments either. The proof of God from after-life evidence is a very logical and well-connected framework, especially useful is the Phoenix Journal called "Human the Science of Man" and supporting evidence in the rest of these volumes.

Is anyone on the same page? There is no adequate reply nor conversation on these topics that I bring up.

I am sure this thread deserves adequate discussion on the topic of God and that is why I am pointing out the banned Pleiades Connection series of Phoenix Journals. I will appreciate discussion of this topic by referencing the poster to evidence of the WORD which gives TRUTH.

Yes, I would need a recap to thoroughly reply to it.

Based upon this sentence, however...:

Quote

The proof of God from after-life evidence is a very logical and well-connected framework, especially useful is...

...I would say that any reply I would make would likely be generally condensed to something along the lines of, "Any after-life evidence, or any empirical evidence in general, could only be used as corollary or suggestive evidence of God's existence if there previously exists some 'a priori' philosophical proof for God's existence, and the evidence would need to be framed within the context of that philosophical proof."

Hi joint, you may wish to read my latest posts and references to better understand the form of the proof.

All atheists are humanists; also, the Eisenbeiss case strongly supports survival, which humanists reject, so I conclude that all atheists are mistaken.

Further, we now know that life is more than just complicated chemistry and this also undermines humanism.

I'll take a look at it. But again, it's a theoretical and logical impossibility for there to be empirical proof of God. Empirical proof or "evidence" is only relevant to things that are observable. By definition, an "intelligent designer of reality" has non-observable components. Therefore, you can't prove God with evidence. The best you can do is a logical proof, and then find suggestive or corollary evidence to support it after the fact.

To make an analogy, when you have a thought you are exposed to the non-observable content and meaning of that thought. Others around you might be able to do an empirical neurological analysis of your brain at the time you're having a thought, and certain types of electrical and neuronal activity will suggest that you are indeed having a thought. As a result, they can find suggestive, corollary evidence that you are having a thought, but they wouldn't be able to make this suggestion if you didn't know your thought existed in the first place so as to be able to link brain activity to it.

vokain

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1019

Quote from: sdp on April 05, 2015, 05:10:43 PM

Quote from: Cortex7 on August 13, 2014, 11:57:31 AM

Mitochondrial DNA evolution seems more complex than the OP article assumes:

Or if you want something bigger to pray to then we have SOL, our life enabling star.

Sol Invictus. The unconquered sun. This was for a brief time a competing monotheistic religion in the Roman empire. Held on December 25th, there was the festival of the unconquered sun. It had to compete with Jupiter and his gang that had been already established. Call him Sol Invictus.

sdp

Quote

“For three days, December 22nd , 23rd, and 24th, the Sun rises on the exact same latitudinal (declinations) degree. This is the only time in the year that the Sun actually stops its movement northward or Southward in our sky. On the morning of December 25th the Sun moves one degree northward beginning its annual journey back to us in the Northern Hemisphere, ultimately bringing our spring. Anything steadily moving all year long that suddenly stops moving for three days was considered to have died. Therefore, God’s Sun who was dead for three days, moves onedegree northward on December 25th and is symbolically born again.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/atlantean_conspiracy/atlantean_conspiracy44.htm

And happy Easter:

Quote

The Book of Mark is the Book of Mars. The planet/archetype Mars is the ruler of Aries which makes the Book of Mark, in zodiacal terms, the Book of Aries. The word “arise” comes from Aries [Horus:Sun, Aries:Arise; horizon], as it is the first house of the zodiac where the sun arises during the spring equinox/Easter.

Aries month is April which comes from the Latin “aperio,” meaning to open or begin. Just as Aries is the first zodiacal sign, April was (and still is in many cultures) the first month of the calendar year. To the ancients, the spring equinox was a more appropriate calendrical beginning because it is when the daytime hours officially overtake the nighttime hours. The Sun is resurrected, its light triumphs over darkness, and Gaia begins to bloom again.

But I'd prefer to pray to where the Sun comes from

Vod

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 3010

Licking my boob since 1970

bl4kjaguar

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: the joint on April 04, 2015, 08:45:40 PM

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on April 04, 2015, 08:38:52 PM

Yo 'joint', how about adequately addressing this thread and the comments I have made about the Eisenbeiss case and other comments? Do you need a recap? I never heard an adequate reply to my comments either. The proof of God from after-life evidence is a very logical and well-connected framework, especially useful is the Phoenix Journal called "Human the Science of Man" and supporting evidence in the rest of these volumes.

Is anyone on the same page? There is no adequate reply nor conversation on these topics that I bring up.

I am sure this thread deserves adequate discussion on the topic of God and that is why I am pointing out the banned Pleiades Connection series of Phoenix Journals. I will appreciate discussion of this topic by referencing the poster to evidence of the WORD which gives TRUTH.

Yes, I would need a recap to thoroughly reply to it.

Based upon this sentence, however...:

Quote

The proof of God from after-life evidence is a very logical and well-connected framework, especially useful is...

...I would say that any reply I would make would likely be generally condensed to something along the lines of, "Any after-life evidence, or any empirical evidence in general, could only be used as corollary or suggestive evidence of God's existence if there previously exists some 'a priori' philosophical proof for God's existence, and the evidence would need to be framed within the context of that philosophical proof."

Hi joint, you may wish to read my latest posts and references to better understand the form of the proof.

All atheists are humanists; also, the Eisenbeiss case strongly supports survival, which humanists reject, so I conclude that all atheists are mistaken.

Further, we now know that life is more than just complicated chemistry and this also undermines humanism.

sdp

sr. member

Activity: 470

Merit: 281

Quote from: Cortex7 on August 13, 2014, 11:57:31 AM

Mitochondrial DNA evolution seems more complex than the OP article assumes:

Or if you want something bigger to pray to then we have SOL, our life enabling star.

Sol Invictus. The unconquered sun. This was for a brief time a competing monotheistic religion in the Roman empire. Held on December 25th, there was the festival of the unconquered sun. It had to compete with Jupiter and his gang that had been already established. Call him Sol Invictus.

sdp

tarzan2

hero member

Activity: 556

Merit: 500

its not my fault

couldnt every one of these scientific "proofs" be used to demonstrate that god doesnt exist as well? its a circular argument
i quote "proofs" because science by definition does not attempt to prove anything.. it merely tries to demonstrate likely theorems to describe natural phenomena

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on April 04, 2015, 08:38:52 PM

Yo 'joint', how about adequately addressing this thread and the comments I have made about the Eisenbeiss case and other comments? Do you need a recap? I never heard an adequate reply to my comments either. The proof of God from after-life evidence is a very logical and well-connected framework, especially useful is the Phoenix Journal called "Human the Science of Man" and supporting evidence in the rest of these volumes.

Is anyone on the same page? There is no adequate reply nor conversation on these topics that I bring up.

I am sure this thread deserves adequate discussion on the topic of God and that is why I am pointing out the banned Pleiades Connection series of Phoenix Journals. I will appreciate discussion of this topic by referencing the poster to evidence of the WORD which gives TRUTH.

Yes, I would need a recap to thoroughly reply to it.

Based upon this sentence, however...:

Quote

The proof of God from after-life evidence is a very logical and well-connected framework, especially useful is...

...I would say that any reply I would make would likely be generally condensed to something along the lines of, "Any after-life evidence, or any empirical evidence in general, could only be used as corollary or suggestive evidence of God's existence if there previously exists some 'a priori' philosophical proof for God's existence, and the evidence would need to be framed within the context of that philosophical proof."

bl4kjaguar

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Yo 'joint', how about adequately addressing this thread and the comments I have made about the Eisenbeiss case and other comments? Do you need a recap? I never heard an adequate reply to my comments either. The proof of God from after-life evidence is a very logical and well-connected framework, especially useful is the Phoenix Journal called "Human the Science of Man" and supporting evidence in the rest of these volumes.

Is anyone on the same page? There is no adequate reply nor conversation on these topics that I bring up.

I am sure this thread deserves adequate discussion on the topic of God and that is why I am pointing out the banned Pleiades Connection series of Phoenix Journals. I will appreciate discussion of this topic by referencing the poster to evidence of the WORD which gives TRUTH.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: BADecker on April 04, 2015, 02:16:46 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: BADecker on April 04, 2015, 11:58:55 AM

Quote from: username18333 on April 03, 2015, 04:23:47 PM

[…]

Quote from: Don Koks. “What are Half Lives and Mean Lives?” Don Koks, 223. 08 Mar. 235. link=http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/HalfLife/halfLife.html

[…]

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true. The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result. Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly. Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question. But no experiment ever has. If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics. Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally. Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics. The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!). That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place. So this way of conducting science works very well.

(Red colorization mine.)

In (conventional) mathematics, a “statement” (e.g., 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐²) can be either proven or disproven. In (conventional) science, a hypothesis (e.g., “Every object in the Universe attracts…”) can only be disproven.

Oh, this is just lovely. It might even be beautiful. I am so glad that somebody developed math. It makes certain aspects of life so much easier.

My info at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 might even use a little math. People who see the evidence that proves the existence of God might even use a little math. They might even be using it a little while the proof for God is being formed in their minds.

Mathematics is a language of man. Does anybody know for a fact that it exists in nature without man having developed it? There is a whole lot more to nature than math. There might be things that math can't be applied to. Until mathematicians and scientists are willing to recognize this, they are hampering their own development.

(Red colorization mine.)

1.

Quote from: ?? on ??

[…]

Code:

𝑘 ∶ *0 = 𝑘 ⁄ *0 = 𝑘(1 ⁄ *0) = 𝑘*0⁻¹ = 𝑘(0 + ⅟₀)⁻¹ = 𝑘⅟₀⁻¹ = 𝑘(0⁻¹)⁻¹ = 𝑘0⁻¹⁽⁻¹⁾ = 𝑘0¹ = 𝑘0 = 0

Finite evidence (here, “suggest[ion]” [BADecker]) equates to a lack of evidence relative to absolute evidence.

2. Mathematics, like the variables of the expression 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐², "exists in nature" (BADecker) insofar as consciousness exists in nature.

Except that we don't know for a fact that the consciousness is NOT a extra universal construct, and that the brain is simply learning how to work with something outside the universe.

"Universe" implies everything. Because of this, extra-universal is something that we cannot even begin to comprehend.

If something was real enough outside of reality/the Universe so as to be able to affect it, it would be inside reality.

You are right about one thing, we cannot comprehend something that is outside reality/the Universe.

So why have you made dozens of posts making claims to the contrary?

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: BADecker on April 04, 2015, 02:16:46 PM

Except that we don't know for a fact that the consciousness is NOT a extra universal construct, and that the brain is simply learning how to work with something outside the universe.

(Red colorization mine.)

1. Perception doesn’t provide for “know[ing] for a fact” (BADecker).

2. Did you look over the linked article, “The Radical Plasticity Thesis: How the Brain Learns to be Conscious”‽

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: BADecker on April 04, 2015, 11:58:55 AM

Quote from: username18333 on April 03, 2015, 04:23:47 PM

[…]

Quote from: Don Koks. “What are Half Lives and Mean Lives?” Don Koks, 223. 08 Mar. 235. link=http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/HalfLife/halfLife.html

[…]

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true. The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result. Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly. Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question. But no experiment ever has. If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics. Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally. Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics. The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!). That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place. So this way of conducting science works very well.

(Red colorization mine.)

In (conventional) mathematics, a “statement” (e.g., 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐²) can be either proven or disproven. In (conventional) science, a hypothesis (e.g., “Every object in the Universe attracts…”) can only be disproven.

Oh, this is just lovely. It might even be beautiful. I am so glad that somebody developed math. It makes certain aspects of life so much easier.

My info at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 might even use a little math. People who see the evidence that proves the existence of God might even use a little math. They might even be using it a little while the proof for God is being formed in their minds.

Mathematics is a language of man. Does anybody know for a fact that it exists in nature without man having developed it? There is a whole lot more to nature than math. There might be things that math can't be applied to. Until mathematicians and scientists are willing to recognize this, they are hampering their own development.

(Red colorization mine.)

1.

Quote from: ?? on ??

[…]

Code:

𝑘 ∶ *0 = 𝑘 ⁄ *0 = 𝑘(1 ⁄ *0) = 𝑘*0⁻¹ = 𝑘(0 + ⅟₀)⁻¹ = 𝑘⅟₀⁻¹ = 𝑘(0⁻¹)⁻¹ = 𝑘0⁻¹⁽⁻¹⁾ = 𝑘0¹ = 𝑘0 = 0

Finite evidence (here, “suggest[ion]” [BADecker]) equates to a lack of evidence relative to absolute evidence.

2. Mathematics, like the variables of the expression 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐², "exists in nature" (BADecker) insofar as consciousness exists in nature.

Except that we don't know for a fact that the consciousness is NOT a extra universal construct, and that the brain is simply learning how to work with something outside the universe.

"Universe" implies everything. Because of this, extra-universal is something that we cannot even begin to comprehend.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: BADecker on April 04, 2015, 01:19:21 PM

Quote from: the joint on April 04, 2015, 01:06:15 PM

Quote from: BADecker on April 04, 2015, 11:58:55 AM

Quote from: username18333 on April 03, 2015, 04:23:47 PM

Quote from: BADecker on March 28, 2015, 09:43:20 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

[…]

Code:

𝑘 ∶ *0 = 𝑘 ⁄ *0 = 𝑘(1 ⁄ *0) = 𝑘*0⁻¹ = 𝑘(0 + ⅟₀)⁻¹ = 𝑘⅟₀⁻¹ = 𝑘(0⁻¹)⁻¹ = 𝑘0⁻¹⁽⁻¹⁾ = 𝑘0¹ = 𝑘0 = 0

Finite evidence (here, “suggest[ion]” [BADecker]) equates to a lack of evidence relative to absolute evidence.

The same qualities in people that cause them to seek out information, and test out new math, and determine the principles of quantum mechanics probability so that it can suggest almost anything, are the exact principles of scientific proof for many things, even though these qualities may not have been set to exact science, yet. If we didn't have them, there would be no science whatsoever.

(Red colorization mine.)

Quote from: Don Koks. “What are Half Lives and Mean Lives?” Don Koks, 223. 08 Mar. 235. link=http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/HalfLife/halfLife.html

[…]

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true. The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result. Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly. Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question. But no experiment ever has. If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics. Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally. Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics. The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!). That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place. So this way of conducting science works very well.

(Red colorization mine.)

In (conventional) mathematics, a “statement” (e.g., 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐²) can be either proven or disproven. In (conventional) science, a hypothesis (e.g., “Every object in the Universe attracts…”) can only be disproven.

Oh, this is just lovely. It might even be beautiful. I am so glad that somebody developed math. It makes certain aspects of life so much easier.

My info at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 might even use a little math. People who see the evidence that proves the existence of God might even use a little math. They might even be using it a little while the proof for God is being formed in their minds.

Mathematics is a language of man. Does anybody know for a fact that it exists in nature without man having developed it? There is a whole lot more to nature than math. There might be things that math can't be applied to. Until mathematicians and scientists are willing to recognize this, they are hampering their own development.

Yes, nature is mathematical.

The existence of nature is only recognized and described through mathematics. Any theory about *anything* is a mathematical construct. Without a mathematical theory describing its existence, nature cannot be asserted to exist (i.e. the theory "nature exists" is a mathematical construct).

We "discover" -- or perhaps better, we "uncover" -- the physical laws of the Universe, and we formulate theoretical (i.e. mathematical) models about their operations. The physical laws cannot be asserted or confirmed to exist without a mathematical model describing them.

Any understanding of *anything* natural is a mathematical understanding of it.

Nature is absolutely NOT mathematical. Nature is simply of a condition and state that mathematics can be applied to it.

Your assertion/theory that "nature is simply of a condition and state that mathematics can be applied to..." is ascribing nature with inherent mathematical properties.

This is irrefutable. Any claim you could possibly make to the contrary only reinforces this claim. Any time you say "nature is [something]" or "nature is [not something]" then you are ascribing mathematical properties to it. It's completely unavoidable.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: the joint on April 04, 2015, 01:06:15 PM

Quote from: BADecker on April 04, 2015, 11:58:55 AM

Quote from: username18333 on April 03, 2015, 04:23:47 PM

Quote from: BADecker on March 28, 2015, 09:43:20 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

[…]

Code:

𝑘 ∶ *0 = 𝑘 ⁄ *0 = 𝑘(1 ⁄ *0) = 𝑘*0⁻¹ = 𝑘(0 + ⅟₀)⁻¹ = 𝑘⅟₀⁻¹ = 𝑘(0⁻¹)⁻¹ = 𝑘0⁻¹⁽⁻¹⁾ = 𝑘0¹ = 𝑘0 = 0

Finite evidence (here, “suggest[ion]” [BADecker]) equates to a lack of evidence relative to absolute evidence.

The same qualities in people that cause them to seek out information, and test out new math, and determine the principles of quantum mechanics probability so that it can suggest almost anything, are the exact principles of scientific proof for many things, even though these qualities may not have been set to exact science, yet. If we didn't have them, there would be no science whatsoever.

(Red colorization mine.)

Quote from: Don Koks. “What are Half Lives and Mean Lives?” Don Koks, 223. 08 Mar. 235. link=http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/HalfLife/halfLife.html

[…]

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true. The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result. Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly. Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question. But no experiment ever has. If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics. Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally. Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics. The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!). That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place. So this way of conducting science works very well.

(Red colorization mine.)

In (conventional) mathematics, a “statement” (e.g., 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐²) can be either proven or disproven. In (conventional) science, a hypothesis (e.g., “Every object in the Universe attracts…”) can only be disproven.

Oh, this is just lovely. It might even be beautiful. I am so glad that somebody developed math. It makes certain aspects of life so much easier.

My info at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 might even use a little math. People who see the evidence that proves the existence of God might even use a little math. They might even be using it a little while the proof for God is being formed in their minds.

Mathematics is a language of man. Does anybody know for a fact that it exists in nature without man having developed it? There is a whole lot more to nature than math. There might be things that math can't be applied to. Until mathematicians and scientists are willing to recognize this, they are hampering their own development.

Yes, nature is mathematical.

The existence of nature is only recognized and described through mathematics. Any theory about *anything* is a mathematical construct. Without a mathematical theory describing its existence, nature cannot be asserted to exist (i.e. the theory "nature exists" is a mathematical construct).

We "discover" -- or perhaps better, we "uncover" -- the physical laws of the Universe, and we formulate theoretical (i.e. mathematical) models about their operations. The physical laws cannot be asserted or confirmed to exist without a mathematical model describing them.

Any understanding of *anything* natural is a mathematical understanding of it.

Nature is absolutely NOT mathematical. Nature is simply of a condition and state that mathematics can be applied to it.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: BADecker on April 04, 2015, 11:58:55 AM

Quote from: username18333 on April 03, 2015, 04:23:47 PM

Quote from: BADecker on March 28, 2015, 09:43:20 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

[…]

Code:

𝑘 ∶ *0 = 𝑘 ⁄ *0 = 𝑘(1 ⁄ *0) = 𝑘*0⁻¹ = 𝑘(0 + ⅟₀)⁻¹ = 𝑘⅟₀⁻¹ = 𝑘(0⁻¹)⁻¹ = 𝑘0⁻¹⁽⁻¹⁾ = 𝑘0¹ = 𝑘0 = 0

Finite evidence (here, “suggest[ion]” [BADecker]) equates to a lack of evidence relative to absolute evidence.

The same qualities in people that cause them to seek out information, and test out new math, and determine the principles of quantum mechanics probability so that it can suggest almost anything, are the exact principles of scientific proof for many things, even though these qualities may not have been set to exact science, yet. If we didn't have them, there would be no science whatsoever.

(Red colorization mine.)

Quote from: Don Koks. “What are Half Lives and Mean Lives?” Don Koks, 223. 08 Mar. 235. link=http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/HalfLife/halfLife.html

[…]

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true. The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result. Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly. Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question. But no experiment ever has. If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics. Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally. Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics. The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!). That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place. So this way of conducting science works very well.

(Red colorization mine.)

In (conventional) mathematics, a “statement” (e.g., 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐²) can be either proven or disproven. In (conventional) science, a hypothesis (e.g., “Every object in the Universe attracts…”) can only be disproven.

Oh, this is just lovely. It might even be beautiful. I am so glad that somebody developed math. It makes certain aspects of life so much easier.

My info at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 might even use a little math. People who see the evidence that proves the existence of God might even use a little math. They might even be using it a little while the proof for God is being formed in their minds.

Mathematics is a language of man. Does anybody know for a fact that it exists in nature without man having developed it? There is a whole lot more to nature than math. There might be things that math can't be applied to. Until mathematicians and scientists are willing to recognize this, they are hampering their own development.

Yes, nature is mathematical.

The existence of nature is only recognized and described through mathematics. Any theory about *anything* is a mathematical construct. Without a mathematical theory describing its existence, nature cannot be asserted to exist (i.e. the theory "nature exists" is a mathematical construct).

We "discover" -- or perhaps better, we "uncover" -- the physical laws of the Universe, and we formulate theoretical (i.e. mathematical) models about their operations. The physical laws cannot be asserted or confirmed to exist without a mathematical model describing them.

Any understanding of *anything* natural is a mathematical understanding of it.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: username18333 on April 03, 2015, 04:23:47 PM

Quote from: BADecker on March 28, 2015, 09:43:20 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

[…]

Code:

𝑘 ∶ *0 = 𝑘 ⁄ *0 = 𝑘(1 ⁄ *0) = 𝑘*0⁻¹ = 𝑘(0 + ⅟₀)⁻¹ = 𝑘⅟₀⁻¹ = 𝑘(0⁻¹)⁻¹ = 𝑘0⁻¹⁽⁻¹⁾ = 𝑘0¹ = 𝑘0 = 0

Finite evidence (here, “suggest[ion]” [BADecker]) equates to a lack of evidence relative to absolute evidence.

The same qualities in people that cause them to seek out information, and test out new math, and determine the principles of quantum mechanics probability so that it can suggest almost anything, are the exact principles of scientific proof for many things, even though these qualities may not have been set to exact science, yet. If we didn't have them, there would be no science whatsoever.

(Red colorization mine.)

Quote from: Don Koks. “What are Half Lives and Mean Lives?” Don Koks, 223. 08 Mar. 235. link=http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/HalfLife/halfLife.html

[…]

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true. The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result. Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly. Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question. But no experiment ever has. If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics. Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally. Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics. The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!). That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place. So this way of conducting science works very well.

(Red colorization mine.)

In (conventional) mathematics, a “statement” (e.g., 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐²) can be either proven or disproven. In (conventional) science, a hypothesis (e.g., “Every object in the Universe attracts…”) can only be disproven.

Oh, this is just lovely. It might even be beautiful. I am so glad that somebody developed math. It makes certain aspects of life so much easier.

My info at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 might even use a little math. People who see the evidence that proves the existence of God might even use a little math. They might even be using it a little while the proof for God is being formed in their minds.

Mathematics is a language of man. Does anybody know for a fact that it exists in nature without man having developed it? There is a whole lot more to nature than math. There might be things that math can't be applied to. Until mathematicians and scientists are willing to recognize this, they are hampering their own development.

GannickusX

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

Quote from: username18333 on April 03, 2015, 04:23:47 PM

Quote from: BADecker on March 28, 2015, 09:43:20 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

[…]

Code:

𝑘 ∶ *0 = 𝑘 ⁄ *0 = 𝑘(1 ⁄ *0) = 𝑘*0⁻¹ = 𝑘(0 + ⅟₀)⁻¹ = 𝑘⅟₀⁻¹ = 𝑘(0⁻¹)⁻¹ = 𝑘0⁻¹⁽⁻¹⁾ = 𝑘0¹ = 𝑘0 = 0

Finite evidence (here, “suggest[ion]” [BADecker]) equates to a lack of evidence relative to absolute evidence.

The same qualities in people that cause them to seek out information, and test out new math, and determine the principles of quantum mechanics probability so that it can suggest almost anything, are the exact principles of scientific proof for many things, even though these qualities may not have been set to exact science, yet. If we didn't have them, there would be no science whatsoever.

(Red colorization mine.)

Quote from: Don Koks. “What are Half Lives and Mean Lives?” Don Koks, 223. 08 Mar. 235. link=http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/HalfLife/halfLife.html

[…]

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true. The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result. Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly. Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question. But no experiment ever has. If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics. Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally. Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics. The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!). That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place. So this way of conducting science works very well.

(Red colorization mine.)

In (conventional) mathematics, a “statement” (e.g., 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐²) can be either proven or disproven. In (conventional) science, a hypothesis (e.g., “Every object in the Universe attracts…”) can only be disproven.

The problem with badecker is that he uses arguments like: Well the gravity theory is just a theory or we dont know how gravity originates therefore god exists. Well its true that scientists dont know exactly how gravity originates or why exists but we do know how it works, we know exactly how it works and we use it for a variety of things.

(oYo)

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 500

I like boobies

Happy Good Friday everyone!

username18333

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Knowledge could but approximate existence.

Quote from: BADecker on March 28, 2015, 09:43:20 PM

the exact principles of scientific proof for many things

(Red colorization mine.)

Quote from: Don Koks. “What are Half Lives and Mean Lives?” Don Koks, 223. 08 Mar. 235. link=http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/HalfLife/halfLife.html

So certainly physics has not proven, and can never prove, that its theory of atomic decay is true. The logical process is that if atoms decay randomly, then Poisson statistics will result. Experiments show that Poisson statistics do indeed result, but logically this does not mean that atoms decay randomly. Nevertheless, the way of science is that we do postulate that atoms decay randomly, until a new experiment calls this into question. But no experiment ever has. If this sounds like a reverse use of logic, then consider the same ideas for mechanics. Ideas of gravity, mass and acceleration were originally produced by Newton through the same process: because they predicted planetary orbital periods that could be verified experimentally. Because of this great success, expressions such as F = ma and F = GMm/r2 came to be canonical in physics. The logic was indeed being used in reverse; but no one was surprised when, three centuries later, one of the moon astronauts dropped a feather and a hammer together in the moon's vacuum, and found that they both fell at the same rate (although it was still beautiful and dramatic to watch!). That reverse logic had, after all, allowed him to get to the moon in the first place. So this way of conducting science works very well.

(Red colorization mine.)

In (conventional) mathematics, a “statement” (e.g., 𝑎² + 𝑏² ≟ 𝑐²) can be either proven or disproven. In (conventional) science, a hypothesis (e.g., “Every object in the Universe attracts…”) can only be disproven.

Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 281. (Read 845809 times)