I think I’m an Atheist :(? :)?

by chrisuk 78 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  jgnat

  Here's a complexity that can be described mathematically. This is an example of fractals in nature. We may be seeing a physical expression of a simple bit of genetic coding that allows for very complex forms. One command builds it all.

  

  One asset of fractals, for instance, is a much larger surface area. We are using fractal designs now, in cell phone antennas.

  

  Note that we don't have a big clunky antenna popping off our cell phones any more. The discovery of some of the properties of fractal design have led to antennas looking like this:

  

  Food for thought.
• 

  Seraphim23

  I’m not arguing with why human beings developed methods of counting things adamah that is quite obvious. It’s more to do with why it works; as it corresponds with order found in nature to the extent that the mathematical side has even predicted what nature will do before it was observed in reality to some extent. I’m all for that because I don’t see a contradiction between science and belief in God. Let science fill in as many gaps as it can. Just don’t delude yourself that there isn’t more than is contained in heaven than in your philosophy Horatio.

  When it comes to chaos verses order, one has to be careful in this area. You’re really talking about non predictability predicated by a system already in place that is governed by forces. I’m talking about chaos is the sense of no constants whatsoever. It might be impossible to calculate where precisely a molecule of water will end up after a year or even a minute, but the water wouldn’t even flow or exist if it were not for other factors already in place and corresponding to laws that are constant and predictable and predictable in their constancy. Disorder in the universe may be increasing over time but we are told that it started off very ordered indeed. So even if you are correct that there is more disorder than order now, the ratio has not always been the same.

  Einstein’s quote is interesting to me but in essence it simply says we do not have all the answers but he certainly seems to see a relationship between the abstract and the real or mathematics and physics. There I have no issue.

  I wish you would tackle the logic of my other arguments as I would love to be proved wrong because I might learn something, which would be nice. However you haven’t, so I am minded to still think I have a valid point in saying that the non-scientific theory of God has some merit in the absence of the ultimate answer to why from science?
• 

  Apognophos

  It might be impossible to calculate where precisely a molecule of water will end up after a year or even a minute, but the water wouldn’t even flow or exist if it were not for other factors already in place and corresponding to laws that are constant and predictable and predictable in their constancy.

  If the world were so chaotic that water couldn't exist, or general laws could not be observed to be governing things consistently, how could we be here to observe it? How do you know how many universes existed before this one (or came to exist alongside it) which were a total mess and had no life develop in them?
• 

  rmt1

  Once you pop out of Flatland you're stuck. You cannot go back to Flatland without cranial surgery.
• 

  Seraphim23

  Apognophos the anthropic principle if true also means that science has no access to those other universes and therefor science has limits, which also makes the anthropic principle metaphysical in nature. If those other universes can be observed, even indirectly, then the idea of the anthropic principle fails as it is observed. As well as this, the `something from nothing` argument is not addressed by the anthropic principle and the infinity problem is one step more pertinent.
• 

  jgnat

  I prefer the giant unanswered questions in science, which leads to even bigger questions, over certainty unfounded.
• 

  Captain Obvious

  The laws of nature weren't made to match or follow a mathematical constant, the constants exist separate from nature. Nature just happens to be measurable by mathematical constants.

  So to say that nature is so "finely tuned" that it couldn't come about but by a designer is false. Nature predates any and all mathematical and scientific observation and emasurement.
• 

  Seraphim23

  So let me get this right Captain Obvious, that because it is a coincidence that nature can be measurable by mathematical constants that happen to be coincidently separate from nature, then fine tuning fails as an argument for a designer of some kind, really? Not very convincing to me, plus again the `something from nothing` or the opposite infinity problems are not addressed.
• 

  cofty

  mathematical constants that happen to be coincidently separate from nature,

  For example?
• 

  KateWild

  pi is a mathematical constant. 3.141592654 to 9dp this is an infinate number. We can measure the circumferance of the world and accomplish lots and make spheres ourselves.

  Which came first, God, pi or the sphere? I say God, why not? Kate xx