Math Proves God?

Mystical · Post by **Mystical** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:38 am

Thought some might enjoy this:

A Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:19 pm

Probability is discussed here.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 80&start=0
Pay attention to August's mention of the coin flip anlysis.

To sumarize, probabilities are mathematical constructs to help us understand situations in which we do not know all the variables.

In other words the more we know the less probabilistic it becomes.

There is little we know about the constants of nature besides their values, due to the fact that we only inhabit one Universe.

Also, there is little we know about the properties necessary for the creation of life due to the fact that we have never observed such a process ourselves.

Therefore any probabilities resulting from such equations tell us more about our lack of knowledge, rather than give us any clues as to what is likely or not.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:50 pm

So you're admitting now that evolution is in fact impossible? Because we know no natural phenomena create high non-repeating levels of information.

You're setting up strawmen BGood. It's not just that information laden patters are improbable, it's that they're the hallmark of design and not mindless forces.

Jay_7 · Post by **Jay_7** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:59 pm

From what i read and know math can prove a God, its knowledge and the universe cant create that IMO

Mystical · Post by **Mystical** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 4:11 pm

BGood:

Probability is discussed in the article I posted. Did you read it? Says alot.

sandy_mcd · Post by **sandy_mcd** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 7:07 pm

Huxley wrote:Mathematics may be compared to a mill of exquisite workmanship, which grinds you stuff of any degree of fineness; but, nevertheless, what you get out depends upon what you put in; and as the grandest mill in the world will not extract wheat-flour from peascod, so pages of formulae will not get a definite result out of loose data.

sandy_mcd · Post by **sandy_mcd** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 7:31 pm

How do we know that there isn't some as yet undiscovered principle which would explain the self-organization of the basic chemical building blocks of life ? Given the attitude of some here towards science and scientists, it's ironic that this mathematical proof of design requires that scientists currently understand science well enough to rule out such a possibility. Compare this situation with Kelvin's calculation of the age of the earth and also the earlier principle of vitalism.

http://geowords.com/histbooknetscape/k06.htm wrote:In numerals haughty for their implied plus or minus of nothing of significance, Kelvin's final estimate, in 1897, for the age of the earth was 24 million years. Publications of his calculations during the time of their issue had a chilling effect on geology. Darwin deleted from the third edition of Origin any reference to an absolute age of the earth and later edited the phrase "incomprehensibly vast" to "how vast." Evolutionary palaeontologists coped by lessening their notion of how much time was needed for evolution but stratigraphers at the beginning of this century were persuaded to absurd conclusions in their explanations of the rock record of the Precambrian which they compressed into a few million years. That was to leave as much time as possible for evolution, on the supposition that life had originated at the beginning of the Cambrian. Lyell's reaction to Kelvin, to quote from Great Geological Controversies, by A. Hallum, 2001, was "to invoke the possibility of divine laws at variance with the discovered laws of nature," and to wish "that some unknown energy source would eventually be discovered, which indeed happened some three decades later."

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/V/vitalism.html wrote:vitalism
The now-discredited hypothesis that only living tissue, by virtue of possessing some "life-force," can produce organic compounds. Among its greatest advocates was Berzelius and, more recently, Bergson. Although Wöhler's synthesis of urea posed a serious empirical challenge to this point of view, it was only with the production of an organic substance, acetic acid, from its elements, by the German chemist Adolph Wilhelm Hermann Kolbe in 1845, that belief in vitalism was finally undermined.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:05 pm

How do we know that there isn't some as yet undiscovered principle which would explain the self-organization of the basic chemical building blocks of life ? Given the attitude of some here towards science and scientists, it's ironic that this mathematical proof of design requires that scientists currently understand science well enough to rule out such a possibility. Compare this situation with Kelvin's calculation of the age of the earth and also the earlier principle of vitalism.

When you wish upon a star...so you're saying we shouldn't come to any conclusions? At the moment, there is no naturalistic explanation for specified complexity...though we do know intelligence is capable of performing such tasks...so you're saying wait until we get all the facts. But would you have advised Darwin not to come to his conclusions? I mean, come on, why do you want the opposing team to play by your rules-you play by your rules, and bring science to a grinding hault.

"People who I disagree with, come to no conclusions until you get all the facts-because once you do, you'll realize I was right"

This is what always gets my goat-one side forces everyone to play by their rules, but they don't play by them. I mean, the motives and beliefs of ID proponents is ALWAYS called into question...but are the motives and beliefs or proponents of evolution brought into question? Ever? No. I mean, Dawkins who leaves himself wide open...has he gotten any criticism (for being a bloody British jerk)?

I've hit a tangent...so what

sandy_mcd · Post by **sandy_mcd** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:29 pm

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:so you're saying we shouldn't come to any conclusions? At the moment, there is no naturalistic explanation for specified complexity...though we do know intelligence is capable of performing such tasks...

No, you do the best with what you have at the moment and realize that all scientific findings are subject to revision in the light of new data. Scientific conclusions need to be evaluated on the basis of what evidence led to that conclusion. [Look at all the claims and counterclaims for which food is good or bad for us. Most of these are based on fairly inconclusive evidence yet often represented as incontrovertible.] What I am specifically saying here is:
1) It is much more difficult to prove something couldn't happen than to show how it could happen. Perpetual motion machines can be dismissed because they violate well-established scientific laws. Although it can be argued that biologic molecules are not likely to have assembled by random chance, there is no acknowledgment in the article cited that there might be some undiscovered mechanism which promotes their formation, just as there is for crystal growth.
2) The assumption that there is no way for such molecules to assemble is based on a touching belief that current scientists know all there is to know about such chemical systems.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:... And I'll never take a scientist serious ...

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:37 pm

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
... And I'll never take a scientist serious ...

Now I know I didn't worry in vain when your status was "searching forum"....first, you took me out of context...second...you took me out of context...third...blah.

1) It is much more difficult to prove something couldn't happen than to show how it could happen. Perpetual motion machines can be dismissed because they violate well-established scientific laws. Although it can be argued that biologic molecules are not likely to have assembled by random chance, there is no acknowledgment in the article cited that there might be some undiscovered mechanism which promotes their formation, just as there is for crystal growth.

True, but in articles about evolution, I never notice any mention of the possibility that there is a major roadblock to macroevolution yet to be discovered. Second, a crystal is a repeating pattern...and that isn't what you need.

2) The assumption that there is no way for such molecules to assemble is based on a touching belief that current scientists know all there is to know about such chemical systems.

And Darwin thought that eventually evidence would fix the fossil record to make it look the way his theory predicted, and evolutionists assume that IF macroevolution is possible, it is what happenned.

sandy_mcd · Post by **sandy_mcd** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:03 pm

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:[ Second, a crystal is a repeating pattern...and that isn't what you need.

Sorry if I was unclear. Crystal growth was not meant to be strictly analogous to evolution. It is just another example (albeit a much more simpler one) in which a similar mathematical argument could be made: it is statistically unlikely that molecules would align by random chance in such patterns, therefore crystals must be designed. Of course we know that the arrangement of molecules in crystals is not random, therefore it seems preposterous to make such a mathematical argument. Perhaps someday people will feel the same about the probability argument for design. Similarly, Kelvin's argument for the age of the earth and the argument for vitalism are now discredited.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:08 pm

It is just another example (albeit a much more simpler one) in which a similar mathematical argument could be made: it is statistically unlikely that molecules would align by random chance in such patterns, therefore crystals must be designed.

I don't think that's quite the entire argument...crystals contain a low level of information-it's just a single repeating pattern that can be represented with a single molecule, just copy and paste basically. There's no specified complexity.

Perhaps someday people will feel the same about the probability argument for design.

Or, maybe we will all think the same thing about the circular raasoning argument for evolution.

Similarly, Kelvin's argument for the age of the earth and the argument for vitalism are now discredited.

I kinda figured that one out on my own...

sandy_mcd · Post by **sandy_mcd** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:13 pm

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:....first, you took me out of context...second...you took me out of context...third...blah.
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I must make up a way to supernaturally make life? That's not scientific to begin with, since it naturally excludes the supernatural. And I'll never take a scientist serious, since we're on the lines of seriousness, when he says that order arose out of chaos, and information out of matter....

I am not sure what the wink is about (perhaps you could explain?), but how is this taking you out of context ? It seems very apropos to me.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:17 pm

You only pasted the part where I said I don't trust scientists. And I don't understand the wink, that was a while ago. That was when Mastermind plauged my nightmares...

sandy_mcd · Post by **sandy_mcd** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:27 pm

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:You only pasted the part where I said I don't trust scientists. And I don't understand the wink, that was a while ago. That was when Mastermind plauged my nightmares...

Well, you said you don't trust scientists re design, and since the thread is about design, it seemed sufficient to include a fragment. [I'm not touching that Mastermind comment.]