The measure of GOD

...it is not really possible. if you think about it people do not create they imitate. all inventions are based on observations of nature and the physical laws. they watch and copy and put things together.

engines are lots of laws and observations construed to produce no creation is there just the bringing together of natural design.
More...

no, that's not exactly right. Mathematics was not an imitation, and many engineered items have no parallels in nature. There is a large field in electromagnetics right now called metamaterials because the materials produced have no natural analogies.
 
"You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambition, your sense of personal identity and free will are in fact no more than a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." -Francis Crick

Francis Crick, great scientist...lousy philosopher...typical of those who study parts and then speak in the pejorative with certainty about the whole and cause of the whole...something they have no understanding of.

There might be a soul, but so far the only thing that has been discovered is that there is a high probability of brain matter wishing there was one."

There might be a soul...do tell.

Quote from NeoRio1:

So you're saying Da Vinci discovered and proved the existence of a god and a soul but he decided to keep it secret? Da Vinci's belief in a god and a soul is about as meaningful as Aristotle claiming that a human can fly if he just taps his feet three times. The only legitimate argument for a god is the first cause argument and it takes an IQ of 70 to understand it. All other arguments for the existence of a god are not arguments for the existence of a god. They are statements wishing there was a god and eternal life.

"You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambition, your sense of personal identity and free will are in fact no more than a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." -Francis Crick

There might be a soul, but so far the only thing that has been discovered is that there is a high probability of brain matter wishing there was one.
More...
 
How would mathematics have begun without man observing the physical relationships between things first...

Man certainly did not invent relationships that predated man, and all of these relationships, chemical, magnet, electromagnetic, gravitational, etc. are at the base of mathematics.

Man has figured out some of the way things work because of these relationships of matter and energy, both on a concrete physical and a non concrete mental level...but nothing was actually discovered that wasn't already there...



Quote from Mav88:

no, that's not exactly right. Mathematics was not an imitation, and many engineered items have no parallels in nature. There is a large field in electromagnetics right now called metamaterials because the materials produced have no natural analogies.
More...
 
Quote from Mav88:

Mathematics was not an imitation

there is nothing particularly original in mathematics. Algebra, calculus, geometry, probability, statistics and most everything else were developed to quanitfy observations. Motion, form, quantum mechanics and a lot of other things. Even fib is observed often, although it is pretty useless in trading.

many engineered items have no parallels in nature. .

they follow natural laws
 
Quote from Mav88:

but yet communicated to us through some 2000 year old children's story book
More...

and yet you expect that your projection onto scripture must be accepted. Perhaps you can prove this assertion in a way that is entirely convincing, and not based on your own particular beliefs and opinion.
 
Quote from peilthetraveler:

Einstein was a smart man. He had an IQ of 160.

Of course Da Vinci had an IQ of 220+ and he believed in the existence of God and the existence of a soul.

Advantage....Da Vinci.


So tell me Vhehn...do you think you are smarter than Da Vinci? That you "figured out" something that he couldnt? Do you think you are smarter than someone that envisioned such inventions as a Tank, a parachute,a flying machine, a helicoptor, a cannon, ect.?


But you have this whole God thing figured out, right? Thats because you read Dawkins book(or went to his websites and saw a few clever quotes that you thought were funny)
More...

I have vhehn on ignore, as he is basically a hot air balloon with an angry face painted on. But since you quoted his cherry picked einstein quote:

Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
 
I can see many of you don't have a formal education in mathematics. Math is an abstraction and not a model, quantum mechanics is underpinned by mathematics that you cannot grasp by simply 'observing nature'. Much of mathematics is not even useful in physics.

We engineer the world around us in ways not imitating or inspired by nature. Saying that we manipulate within natural laws doesn't in any way say we are imitating anything, both nature and us have constraints- big deal, says nothing.

Einstein was a deist, not a theist. He said the personal god idea was rubbish but he held out the possibility of some undefined god concept. Far from supporting the god of abraham he specifically wrote a letter to a priest outlining his disbelief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top