PDA

View Full Version : Does Geometry prove a God's Existence?


Pages : 1 [2]

My First Timbs
04-22-2006, 12:45 AM
thats the same as me saying

"until u believe in my mystical magic, u wont know that their are magical fairies flying around everywhere"

a rational stance cant rely on subjectivity. one shoul dnot have to "believe" in order to see what the issue is.. (once u "believe" its already too late because ur mind is predisposed to interpreting things based on the belief)

WARPATH
04-22-2006, 04:14 AM
thats the same as me saying

"until u believe in my mystical magic, u wont know that their are magical fairies flying around everywhere"

a rational stance cant rely on subjectivity. one shoul dnot have to "believe" in order to see what the issue is.. (once u "believe" its already too late because ur mind is predisposed to interpreting things based on the belief)

True-But when you know something others don't then your playing a totally different ball game

sweet sista
04-22-2006, 09:03 AM
like when u talk about things that people aren't good at. yeah maybe you're good at it but they're not. how can they be positive that what you're saying is true when it's not their major. people usually suppose that either you're right and u have so much knowledge or they might think u tryin' to dupe them.

THE W
04-22-2006, 09:26 AM
i think we get into trouble when we try to figure out gods reasoning for the decisions he makes. we may realize it later, but right now we're not at level to understand the thought process behind why god allows certain things to go down. we're going by what we understand and thats all we know and with that understanding is how we will react to how things happen.

its like if a child asks his father for some ice cream and he says "no". the child will get angry and start crying because they dont understand the though process behind why their father wont let them have the ice cream. they're not mature enough to understand why at that particular time(because the child will ask his father at different time and he may say "yes") why they couldnt get ice cream and with the understanding that child has, they will react to that decision.

sweet sista
04-22-2006, 09:27 AM
a rational stance cant rely on subjectivity. one shoul dnot have to "believe" in order to see what the issue is.. (once u "believe" its already too late because ur mind is predisposed to interpreting things based on the belief)

i don't think there is a person who doesn't believe at all. not necessarily in god but in certain concepts. even you timbs you do believe in what you believe.

there has to be some kinda situation that took place in someone's life during his/her childhood that created a certain idea in mind.

later, when we grow up we sure start to build or examine our ideas "beliefs" about things in life.

Now it's hard to effect someone's mind cuz he/she is not in a weak position as when they were kids. in other words, reality can be seen without any interference from any old beliefs if it's reality. and if there was an interference it won't be that effective comparing to the truth. for those who wants the truth.

Koolish
04-22-2006, 06:50 PM
as far as i can define, you have to put "belief" into something you haven't experienced with your 5 senses.

now no one reply with some retarded "yo your senses are just electricity, drop the knowledge", the 5 senses are the only way a human being can experience something.

sweet sista
04-23-2006, 07:23 AM
true, however you can't condemn all beliefs just cuz they were passed by mama and papa. you have to examine them-beliefs- and experience them and see if they got a true value.

beside knowledge itself is something that was passed during the centuries and so the philosophies. so to say i have to drop a belief just cuz it was passed by our ancestors TO ME. it's like me saying to you, drop knowledge just coz it was passed by those who came before you.

if you want to know the truth in a belief i think the best thing to do is to check it the same way as you would examine theories. Once alone and once you build on others if theirs were right. Anyway, to check that a theory is correct, you have to be a theorist or a really an expert student. you can't be an actor or a broadcaster and still want to prove a theory is wrong. you have to know the exact diminutions to what you're condemning not cuz it's a religious thing but just to be true and fully aware.

And the reason i'm mentioning this, is when someone is going to condemn a belief. I think he/she really should start checking the main source to that belief, How is the source explained exactly? Who did start that belief?

you should check more than one resource and after you complete your "KNOWLEDGE" about it. i think then, one can hit the right spot where it hurts most and prove that a certain belief is fake.
but using people's ignorance in certain things OR analyzing some beliefs without full KNOWLEDGE about them isn't a professional behavior.

ARRCIMEDES
06-05-2006, 11:32 AM
This Thread Will Fry My Brain And Thats Saying Something For Someone Who Is Living In Iraq

adedwutang
06-06-2006, 06:30 PM
sorry if i only read the first post but i just have some comical criticism here. i dont think there is any force or rule that causes a triangle to always have all angles equal 180 degrees, because if it didnt equal 180 degrees, then we wuldnt call it a triangle. theres no force stopping it. whe just make a boundary up that says if it exceeds this, then it is no longer what we previously defined it as. i dont kno, just droppin the first thing that came to my head
get at me-

My First Timbs
06-06-2006, 09:43 PM
u are exactly correct..
a triangle is a humanoid concept.. we created the concept of a triangle.. so its our logic that causes them to adgere to the alleged natural laws

MathMatician
06-07-2006, 01:44 PM
Just Like How The Human Body Is Symmetric, Mo'fuggaz!

MathMatician
06-07-2006, 01:46 PM
Well...most Human Bodies....bless The Disfigured =(

My First Timbs
06-07-2006, 03:51 PM
lol

june181972
06-23-2006, 09:56 AM
Is geometry or any form of math and science man made, or did man have to discover, uncover, and knowledge the facts/properties that were always there?

Just because it took man an unspecified amount of time to figure something out, or understand soemthing, does not mean when that thing is understood it then becomes man made.

If I go out and get some silk and rayon, then proceed to sew some panties, did I actually create something?
No. I made some panties from materials that were created however long ago. And at some point someone decided to name panties, panties.

Labeling, naming, or classifying things is what man does after they understand what that thing is.

One can only discover what is already there. But it got here somehow.

Does math or science prove there is a God or gods?
Ask yourself this question: How did or does Zero become One?

june181972
06-25-2006, 04:11 PM
u are exactly correct..
a triangle is a humanoid concept.. we created the concept of a triangle.. so its our logic that causes them to adgere to the alleged natural laws

Its a humanoid "concept"

We created the concept of a triangle?

If so, where do the "natural laws" come from?

My First Timbs
06-25-2006, 07:45 PM
the natural laws we speak of are properties of our reality as we perceive it.

from that, we develop methods and systems to explain and fit the model so that it makes sense to us.

its our way of explaining the world we live in by creating generalizations and rules.

june181972
06-26-2006, 10:23 AM
the natural laws we speak of are properties of our reality as we perceive it.

from that, we develop methods and systems to explain and fit the model so that it makes sense to us.

its our way of explaining the world we live in by creating generalizations and rules.

So are you saying a triangle is only a triangle because that is how we perceive it?

Does a triangle have 180 degrees or not?
I understand that the 180 is how we have come to lable it through time but it is still a triangle. Right?
If man had "labled" it as something else, it would still be a triangle at the end of the day.

If a natural law is based on "our" perception, does that not make natural laws man made? Thus nothing is "natural"

Can we perceive something that is not there?
Or do we lable and explain it mathematically/scientifically after we have researched, studied, and understood it.

The scientific method is a sort of a check and balance system to create a solid foundation for the eventual understanding of something natural.
It helps us explain the world we live in, but it does not create the world.
The lable or classification or whatever is simply language to explain a natural occurence. Give it a different classification or use different language it is still a triangle.

Man might have drawn a triangle in the dirt 50 trillion years ago, but does that mean he created it? (the true essence of creation)

With all do respect My 1st Timbs, and pardon me if I am missing your point,
but your implication of perception = reality is as unscientific as a mystery God.
Which by the way I do not believe in either.

whitey
06-26-2006, 10:57 AM
So are you saying a triangle is only a triangle because that is how we perceive it?

Does a triangle have 180 degrees or not?
I understand that the 180 is how we have come to lable it through time but it is still a triangle. Right?
If man had "labled" it as something else, it would still be a triangle at the end of the day.

If a natural law is based on "our" perception, does that not make natural laws man made? Thus nothing is "natural"

Can we perceive something that is not there?
Or do we lable and explain it mathematically/scientifically after we have researched, studied, and understood it.

The scientific method is a sort of a check and balance system to create a solid foundation for the eventual understanding of something natural.
It helps us explain the world we live in, but it does not create the world.
The lable or classification or whatever is simply language to explain a natural occurence. Give it a different classification or use different language it is still a triangle.

Man might have drawn a triangle in the dirt 50 trillion years ago, but does that mean he created it? (the true essence of creation)

With all do respect My 1st Timbs, and pardon me if I am missing your point,
but your implication of perception = reality is as unscientific as a mystery God.
Which by the way I do not believe in either.


if we called a triangle a square, it would be called a sqaure.

nothing is anything but its substance without humans naming it.

june181972
06-26-2006, 11:11 AM
if we called a triangle a square, it would be called a sqaure.

nothing is anything but its substance without humans naming it.

Exactly

We do not "create" the substance we just give it a name
We us a word, a form of language, to communicate to one another

We are not speaking anything into existence

A baby cries and srceams and hollers before he/she has the knowledge of language to say "I am hungry"
The phrase "I am hungry" does not create the sensation of an empty stomach

da kid toney
06-26-2006, 11:25 AM
http://bhagavata.net/hayesvar/kb/images/krishna.gif
Booh!

WARPATH
06-27-2006, 08:09 PM
You can say that people that "believe" in God, have experienced him with their senses.

Blazing Fire
06-27-2006, 08:57 PM
regarding triangles

peep the equilateral triangle formed by placing the hands flat, thumbs extended, touching the tips of the thumbs and the sides of the fore fingers

thats real geometry right there

1

WARPATH
06-27-2006, 09:20 PM
I don't know if I siad in this thread already but.....

Circles. The earth is a sphere, the moon, the sun. Any liquid in space becaomes a sphere, any gas, or solid for that matter.

The circle is infinite, you run around in a circle, your back where you started. Same thing as a sphere. There's infinite wisdom in the circle, you just have to reconize it in nature, and in self.

whitey
06-27-2006, 09:35 PM
I don't know if I siad in this thread already but.....

Circles. The earth is a sphere, the moon, the sun. Any liquid in space becaomes a sphere, any gas, or solid for that matter.

The circle is infinite, you run around in a circle, your back where you started. Same thing as a sphere. There's infinite wisdom in the circle, you just have to reconize it in nature, and in self.

Actually thats not true. True shape is an oblate spheriod. Earth is slightly flattened at the poles and slightly bulging at the Equator :learning:

My First Timbs
06-27-2006, 09:50 PM
true indeed

but i just wanted to comment about the nature of the circle/sphere.

once again, the concept of a circle or sphere is a humanoid concept.. (of course the actual shape does indeed exist irrespective of us existing) however, the properties and traits given to it are purely subjective and generalized for our own understanding.

the planets and other celestial bodies being pseudo spherical has no bearing on an inherant alleged wisdom or design.

Visionz
06-27-2006, 09:56 PM
your understanding exist because of your own existence based upon this logic, which means everything you hold as truth is bullshit because everything you comprehend is done so with a humanoid concept.

My First Timbs
06-27-2006, 10:10 PM
your understanding exist because of your own existence based upon this logic, which means everything you hold as truth is bullshit because everything you comprehend is done so with a humanoid concept.

although the post above was unecessarily brash and unecessarily insulting

unknowingly eric unseen has touched upon the crux of the issue and is actually correct in a sense!!

the human brain and mind is designed to look at the world we see, assign properties to phenomenon and recognize patterns and then form a conclusion based on this input!

thats all our brains do!

so in a sense, everything that man can conceive, conceptualize or assign properties to is fallible to an extent and is perception based for our own benefit of making sense of the world.

with our reason, certain things are found or thought to possess more of a "truth" value than others (based on testing and the natural uniformity of experience).

Understanding the fallibility of "raw human reasoning" is the very reason why it is extremely necessary to make all attempts possible to have thought processes and conclusions based on that which can be verifiable, reproducible and potentially falsifiable!

So atleast at the end of the day, whatever is thought, conceived and proposed has a great chance of being as close to objective reality as humanly possible.

Visionz
06-27-2006, 10:24 PM
how do you know it was unknowing? Assumption with no proof and contradictory to your own scientific methodology. I'm perfectly aware of the concepts I'm introducing to the discussion even if I don't reach your same narrow-minded conculsions.


"Understanding the fallibility of "raw human reasoning" is the very reason why it is extremely necessary to make all attempts possible to have thought processes and conclusions based on that which can be verifiable, reproducible and potentially falsifiable!"

I exist beyond the physical limitations you cling to.

june181972
06-27-2006, 10:25 PM
Wether our brain is right or wrong, or whatever level of fallibility, we are still analyzing natural phenomena.

Where does the "nature" come from?
If we don't understand it, it is still there.
And "it" had an origin.

june181972
06-27-2006, 10:41 PM
Why do people equate their disbelief in God (in whatever form) with being
Rational, Logical, and Objective?

This always rubs me as unfounded intellectual arrogance.

I don't think anyone here is saying God is some sort of genie.
Why can't God be mathematical and scientific. (no mystery God)

Just because one can't understand the knowledge of God, doesn't mean one is therefore unable to understand a triangle.

hectis
06-27-2006, 10:49 PM
Even If I Never Would Have Read Any Holy Book Heard Any Holy Text I Would Still Think And Know That There Is A God

hectis
06-27-2006, 11:08 PM
Yes It Would Be But I Got To Know God Before Ever Reading The Bible He Showed Me hHIS Existence Sometimes I Think I Am Suppose To Spread The Word Of God Around AND WHEN I FAIL TO DO SO I FAIL GOD

june181972
06-27-2006, 11:10 PM
The Big Bang or any other "conventional" scientific theory is no more rational, logical, or objective.
Much less proveable.

Blazing Fire
06-27-2006, 11:34 PM
Timbs if you can't trust reasoning, what can you trust?

Nothing. That is your outlook. You do not believe in such a thing as universal truth. Let me know if I'm wrong.

Everything is objective truth. The lies, misrepresentations, "mistakes" - they are all very real. To know a mistake you must know the truth.

We are constantly learning this universal truth...

This is why many of us come to KTL and other forums and search the internet...

We want to find out the truth...

RESPECT LIFE

1

Visionz
06-28-2006, 02:26 AM
unknowingly eric unseen has touched upon the crux of the issue and is actually correct in a sense!!I've been talkin since I was fourth months old, I got a real good grasp of the thoughts that come out my mouth or these hands Timbs. You a real arrogant mothafucka man. For real. OOoOOooohhh, I'm actually correct in a sense!!!! yeah the educated fool agrees with something I say!!!!!!!!!!


Why the fuck would I care what you say Timbs? I'm just another dumbass suffering from psychotic episodes just like Malcolm, Martin, Gandhi, Mother Teresea,and Marley. All those books and dollar bill vocabulary and you're still a small-minded simpleton who is missing all that heavenly glory that exist beyound your finger tips. Don't hate the world of people that get whats beyond your grasp.

WARPATH
06-28-2006, 09:31 AM
^^Keep it cordial.

I think Timbs is just saying, that no one has collected the scientific data to prove that there is a Divine Intelligence that created are existence.

And truth be told, if there is a Divine Intelligence wise enough to create this world, mathematics, human being with rational thought, space, and matter----then That Divine Intelligence would be wise enough to hide his presense from the very creations he created.

CherChezLaMarauder
06-28-2006, 09:33 AM
Eric, I've Been Saying That About My First Timbs.

june181972
06-28-2006, 10:42 AM
How can someone call themselves a "Rational Thinker" and in turn say that the human brain can only "perceive"

This guy is basically saying that empirical knowledge does not exist, and our brains only operate on a normative level.
We see something and classsify it as quickly and as simply as possible.

Timbs does not believe in God, nor does he believe in science because our brains are only capable of making feeble attempts at true knowledge.

This thread is a bunch of tricknowledgy

My First Timbs
06-28-2006, 04:53 PM
This guy is basically saying that empirical knowledge does not exist, and our brains only operate on a normative level.
We see something and classsify it as quickly and as simply as possible



i knew that my post on raw human reasoning and its fallibility would be misunderstood...

in a nutshell,

reason, rational thought and logic can be trusted simply because they provide a framework for verifiability and reproducibility.

even if the means in which we operate will always have a % error, this in no way means that rational thought, logic and "reason" are on par with religious claims and unverifiable assertions.

its actually quite simple

one form/mode of analyzing the world we live in is based upon a framework that allows others to (objectively) authenticate, and verify if something produces like results.

the other form of "reasoning" is not based upon such a framework and thus allows any and everything to potentially be considered without having to provide a basis for the allotment of merit.

all that rational thought requires is a method of providing assurance that a claim is most likely true, verifiable and falsifiable and that it can be experienced by another objective party.

My First Timbs
06-28-2006, 05:00 PM
And truth be told, if there is a Divine Intelligence wise enough to create this world, mathematics, human being with rational thought, space, and matter----then That Divine Intelligence would be wise enough to hide his presense from the very creations he created.

peace charging soldier.

this is of course very true indeed.. but then this would still give no credence to a belief in this being

the rational thinker openly admits that there actually could indeed be a god who designed this whole bowl of wax that we operate in.....but justs designed it in such a way so that hiss/her presence is hidden

however, there is no way to verify that without having an irrational belief that has no merit (even if ultimately it may be true!)

but sadly,,, i could make any old claim about something being in existence and then hide behind a shield that the existence of this force is hidden...and accomplish the same thing as any claim of a deistic hidden god

for ex... "there is an invisible boogieman who magically deposited a large sum of money in my bank account today.. but based on the attributes of this boogieman.. his existence cannot be tested for or verified....."

if i made a claim like that.. it would be totally irrational and meritless (even if it was indeed true!!!)

without a framework in place to add credence to this claim, its irrational to believe that it is true.

rational thought an dlogic provide a framework and mechanism for ensuring that conclusions reached and assertions made are verifiable

june181972
06-28-2006, 05:11 PM
But you said there is no way to verify a triangle is a triangle
It is only so because we humans said so

I'm past the God stuff (I never mentioned religion)

Your argument earlier was that humans "make" reality
If perception = reality then there is no such thing as science, and in turn no such thing as rationality

My First Timbs
06-28-2006, 05:26 PM
peace june

i never stated that humans have no way to verify that a triangle is a "triangle"

humans will have no hard time at all verifiying that a triangle is a triangle because it is our logic that created the concept of the laws that a triangle adheres to.

the fundamental point i was making a few posts back in regard to this issue was that u cant use the alleged properties of a traingle (or circle or any other geo shape) as an argument for design by an unseen force...

(i know the god thing isnt ur argument) but i was offering a commentary on that claim

june181972
06-28-2006, 05:34 PM
I am not feeling you on the notion of a "man made concept."

It was a triangle before we classified.
Do you agree that everything has a beginning?
How would you fundamentally, scientifically, universally, and rationally explain how Zero becomes One?

Example from my earlier post:
A baby screams because it does not have the knowledge of language to say "I am hungry"
But the phrase 'I am hungry" does not created the sensation of an empty stomach
Human understanding does not equal creation or the making of something

shalom7
06-28-2007, 01:42 PM
God does exist, just look around you.....

Geometry is not the proof, the universe is the proof.

all the complexities of the universe/life,etc...just "coincedentally happened" after "the big bang"???? i dont buy that for a min.

Even if your belief is the big bang theory/science/etc, who do you think "set off the bang"????

People like to flatter themselves with big talk/big words/100 page theories about it all, but it aint that complex......


the beauty of it is how simple it is......


God exists.......just not in the way man tries to define Him..



s7

the silencer
06-28-2007, 05:54 PM
this thread might be overdone already but i'll throw some javelins into this mofo...

i see so much of this "God doesn't exist" and "proving there is no God" shit alot now in the mainstream scientific community and alot of intellectuals proudly boasting of their atheism and looking down on those silly "spiritual" people...

i subscribe to a science magazine called SEED and they constantly have advertisements for these kinda books...one was by that dude Dawkins and another was called God: The Failed Hypothesis by i dont remember who..

also, one of my biggest personal influences and one of the greatest science persons of the 20th century, Carl Sagan, CONSTANTLY wrote against the whole idea of a "God" in his books and was known to be an atheist...

....
i've been gettin so tired of this shit...i LOVE science, i LOVE the whole rational, logical, left-brain way of thinking...it's gotten humanity very far and a very short time......but this mode of thinking and this idea of there being "no God" in this cold, dark, uncaring universe is really dangerous for us...and our kids..

i'll put it like my man Joseph Campbell (next to Sagan, my other huge personal influence) said:
"God is a metaphor. God is a metaphor for THAT WHICH TRANSCENDS ALL HUMAN THOUGHTS AND CONCEPTS. BEYOND THE DUALITY (EXISTENCE/NON-EXISTENCE, BEING/NON-BEING, LIFE/DEATH, GOOD/BAD, LIGHT/DARKNESS, MAN/WOMAN, ETC) THAT EXISTS WITHIN THE DIMENSION OF TIME AND SPACE."

the huge atheism in science movement seems to me like a reaction to the idea and image of an anthropomorphic God, like some really tall old white dude with a long white beard who watches over everything we do ("don't masturbate! i can see you!!") and punishes or rewards you according to that..


without a DOUBT, there is no such God...there is no physical heaven either...in the Gospels it says that Jesus ascended to heaven and the Catholic church teaches that he literally physically floated up in the sky and went to heaven and the same thing happened to Mary when she died........astronomy has shown us that even if they were moving at the speed of light, they still wouldn't have escaped the Milky Way galaxy by now....they're bodies would still be floating out there somewhere....

what i'm getting at is....YES, the ideas put forth nowadays by the Catholic church and pretty much the same with the other 2 Western religions is a total fantasy, worship of a illusion...i can sympathize with the intellegentsia wanting to respond at alot of the main philosophies of those right now...

but saying there is no God or spewing some BULLSHIT like "no one has proven the existence (that word again) of God" and all that stuff is just a waste of mental, intellectual energy yo...YOU are God, i'm God...we all are...it's in us...it is the ground of our being, of "life" and matter itself......we are conscious beings, actually manifestations of the consciousness of the universe itself, and thus "God".....put aside ur little logical and scientific method and look inside yourself..



to all y'all atheists and "no-God" preachers out there....use that energy a better way, direct it towards the preachers of a blind faith, worshipping some God in the sky that ain't there......study the Eastern religions (the TRUEST and OLDEST religions), read a Campbell book or watch a lecture, check out Fritjof Capra's Tao of Physics....

and open up ur mind, ur right-brain, ur intuitive senses and let's BUILD yo...

PEACE

Visionz
06-28-2007, 08:35 PM
nice post Silencer, I was pretty heated the last time I posted in this thread, lol. Good see some intelligent commentary from those who don't suscribe to atheistic views points nor religous dogma. peace

Urban_Journalz
06-29-2007, 06:22 AM
Everything in the universe, seen and unseen, testifies to the existence of God, the problem is too many people want to put forth shit-theories and concepts to justify the fact that they're either weak in faith, or have nothing better to do with themselves than go after attention, be it negative of positive.

Don't fret, we'll all know the truth when we're dead. I just can't wait to see the looks on the people's faces who think we're returning to some never-ending "void". lol Fuckin' maricons.

LORD NOSE
04-28-2010, 06:35 AM
Up

Sense-A
05-08-2010, 11:05 PM
One of the greatest mathematicians ever was asked about mathematics as proof of God. Here is the wiki:


Leonhard Euler (15 April 1707 – 18 September 1783) was a pioneering Swiss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_%28people%29) mathematician (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematician) and physicist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicist) who spent most of his life in Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) and Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany). His surname is pronounced /ˈɔɪlər/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English) OY-lər (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pronunciation_respelling_key) (like "Oiler") in English and [ˈɔʏlɐ] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_German) in German; the pronunciation /ˈjuːlər/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English) EW-lər (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pronunciation_respelling_key) is incorrect.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler#cite_note-3)
Euler made important discoveries in fields as diverse as infinitesimal calculus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal_calculus) and graph theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory). He also introduced much of the modern mathematical terminology and notation, particularly for mathematical analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_analysis), such as the notion of a mathematical function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_%28mathematics%29).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler#cite_note-function-4) He is also renowned for his work in mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanics), fluid dynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_dynamics), optics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optics), and astronomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy).
Euler is considered to be the preeminent mathematician of the 18th century and arguably the greatest of all time. He is also one of the most prolific; his collected works fill 60–80 quarto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarto_%28text%29) volumes.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler#cite_note-volumes-5) A statement attributed to Pierre-Simon Laplace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace) expresses Euler's influence on mathematics: "Read Euler, read Euler, he is the master of us all."[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler#cite_note-Laplace-6)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_EulerLeonhard Euler,a Swiss mathematician who at the time is generally recognized as the world's leading mathematician. In the episode related by zion, Euler, tired of the ennui proffered by the atheist,went to the board and wrote: "e^(i*pi)+1=0;therefore God exists" As pointed out,the object of his ridicule had no clue as to the meaning of the equation(and probably no one else did either),since it was an equation developed by Euler himself.The elements of the equation are most remarkable,since they relate several of the most fundamental constants in mathematics. e=the base for natural logarithms, an irrational number,which begins 2.71828......i=the square root of -1,the basic unit of complex numbers(numbers of the form:a+=bi,a,b real numbers. pi=the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter(3.14159.......,an irrational number. 1=the identity element for multiplication 0=the identity element for addition.

Euler insisted that knowledge is founded in part on the basis of precise quantitative laws, something that monadism and Wolffian science were unable to provide. Euler's religious leanings might also have had a bearing on his dislike of the doctrine; he went so far as to label Wolff's ideas as "heathen and atheistic".[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler#cite_note-wolff-41) Much of what is known of Euler's religious beliefs can be deduced from his Letters to a German Princess and an earlier work, Rettung der Göttlichen Offenbahrung Gegen die Einwürfe der Freygeister (Defense of the Divine Revelation against the Objections of the Freethinkers). These works show that Euler was a devout Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian) who believed the Bible to be inspired; the Rettung was primarily an argument for the divine inspiration of scripture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler#cite_note-theology-7)
There is a famous anecdote inspired by Euler's arguments with secular philosophers over religion, which is set during Euler's second stint at the St. Petersburg academy. The French philosopher Denis Diderot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Diderot) was visiting Russia on Catherine the Great's invitation. However, the Empress was alarmed that the philosopher's arguments for atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) were influencing members of her court, and so Euler was asked to confront the Frenchman. Diderot was later informed that a learned mathematician had produced a proof of the existence of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God): he agreed to view the proof as it was presented in court. Euler appeared, advanced toward Diderot, and in a tone of perfect conviction announced, "Sir, http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/7/2/072a75ceaf6d92f0c2e46919b6bfb6b6.png, hence God exists—reply!". Diderot, to whom (says the story) all mathematics was gibberish, stood dumbstruck as peals of laughter erupted from the court. Embarrassed, he asked to leave Russia, a request that was graciously granted by the Empress. However amusing the anecdote may be, it is apocryphal (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apocryphal), given that Diderot was a capable mathematician who had published mathematical treatises.Some will argue that 0+0=0 simply proves that the Universe has always existed in some state or form. Some argue that it disproves the Big Bang theory because something cannot come from nothing.

Now lets consider the concept of infinity. Here is a decent explanation citing the work of mathematician Kurt Gödel [1906-1978]

The metamorphosis of motion from Infinity to the phenomenon of matter is an example of meta-mathematics known as Unimetry (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=129). A detailed description of Unimetry, (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=129) which concerns Pulsoids, (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98) is beyond the scope of this presentation.

A very strong argument can be made that Infinity is the only mathematical provable because of the very fact that Infinity, as the only singularity and as a phenomenon that is beyond Reality, can not be disproved! http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=150

Albert Einstein and Godel, both becoming friends, both believed in God. However Einstein considered God more-so the impersonal order of the universe whereas Godel believed in the afterlife and was a Christian. One of the best modern mathematicians still alive today, Stephen Hawkins, also believes in God. However, I believe he is probably closer to Einstein by believing God as a natural order to everything in the universe rather than an interactive part of our lives. The greatest minds in science and mathematics admit that the universe is far too complex for science and mathematics to explain.

PALEFORCE
05-08-2010, 11:18 PM
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/whitel0tus/GIN-Symbol-1.jpg


http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/whitel0tus/GIN-Symbol-2.jpg

Sense-A
05-21-2010, 04:51 PM
I used to study tetrahedrons. A book i read when i was about 18 spoke about the spiritual power and meaning of the geometrical shape. I found an interesting site that relates to what i previously read years ago. Check it out: http://www.crystalinks.com/merkaba.html

Merkaba, also spelled Merkabah, is the divine light vehicle allegedly used by ascended masters to connect with and reach those in tune with the higher realms. "Mer" means Light. "Ka" means Spirit. "Ba" means Body. Mer-Ka-Ba means the spirit/body surrounded by counter-rotating fields of light, (wheels within wheels), spirals of energy as in DNA, which transports spirit/body from one dimension to another

In modern esoteric teachings, it is taught that the MerKaBa is an interdimensional vehicle consisting of two equally sized, interlocked tetrahedra of light with a common center, where one tetrahedron points up and the other down. This point symmetric form is called a stella octangula or stellated octahedron which can also be obtained by extending the faces of a regular octahedron until they intersect again.
In his books, researcher and physicist Drunvalo Melchizedek describes this figure as a "Star Tetrahedron", since it can be viewed as a three dimensional Star of David. By imagining two superimposed "Star Tetrahedrons" as counterrotating, along with specific "prana" breathing techniques, certain eye movements and mudras, it is taught that one can activate a non-visible 'saucer' shaped energy field around the human body that is anchored at the base of the spine.
That guy Drunvalo has a cult following. Really interesting stuff. If you don't believe me, look him up.


There are 17+1 breaths, where the first six are for balancing the polarity, the next seven for proper pranic flow through the entire body. The further breaths are for shifting the consciousness from 3rd to 4th dimension and finally the last three breaths is for re-creating the rotating Merkabah within and around the body. The last breath is not taught. Once each day, enter into this meditation, until the time comes when you are a conscious breather, remembering with each breath your intimate connection with God.
Supposedly this guru has discovered a method of controlling his breathing in a sort of pattern and meditation that allows his spirit to travel or skip realms. Sort of like a yoga that sits in the same position for days, weeks, months even without food or any apparent movement or function until his spirit returns to his body.


Flower of life: http://www.crystalinks.com/merkabafol.gif


Tetrahdrons:http://www.ka-gold-jewelry.com/images/theme-bg/150/merkaba-big-gold.jpghttp://www.crystalinks.com/merkaba2.gif

beautifulrock
05-21-2010, 04:56 PM
I thought the threadstarter was gonna mention the fact that pi never repeats. The Pythagorean theory is a simple theory that expresses the relationship between the sides of a triangle and it's hypotenuse, it's not magic. If you put two like triangles with a right angle together along the hypotenuse, you have a rectangle. No magic there.

Fatal Guillotine
05-07-2011, 03:34 PM
The "mind" of God is revealed in His creation.

Ghost In The 'Lac
05-07-2011, 03:58 PM
Pff t/s ..... not to have realised that geometry is a MAN MADE construct to explain nature, like physics, gravity, these are all laws in numbers made by man, they didnt exist before. its not like the rules of geometry or maths or physics were just floating around in space and some scientists one day managed to grab them out of thin air.

the theory of newtons gravity, or einsteins gravity, werent just 'there', waiting to be discovered, they were constructed by human hand, artificial, in a means to explain. they do a good job as far as we know, of calculating certain things in nature, nothing more. they didnt EXIST before.

reality doesnt give a skampoe turd about ordering itself.

the abstract metaphorical world or mathematics would NOT exist without intelligent life.

NOT TO MENTION that our personal PERCEPTION of reality is a flawed one anyway, so these numbers that we use to unpuzzle the mirror of our world will always be off. Which is why physics of the very BIG (cosmological) and our physics rules of the very SMALL (quantum) simply don't match up right now, at all. Because its all relative to perceptions.

Fatal Guillotine
05-08-2011, 09:52 AM
mathematics is manmade language, but it doesn't alter the fact that there is a measurable "creation" to describe through geometry. God didn't need Fibonacci to come up with a mathematical expression of how spirals occur in nature before he could make a few pine cones

Ghost In The 'Lac
05-08-2011, 01:05 PM
I'm not sure youre making any sense.

Fatal Guillotine
05-08-2011, 01:10 PM
do you know what is mean by fibonacci ?

Fatal Guillotine
05-10-2011, 08:43 AM
I'm not sure youre making any sense.

Look up Golden Ratio, Phi, Golden Section, etc.

Ghost In The 'Lac
05-10-2011, 12:57 PM
Honey, please. I think we're talking on different levels here. We all have to start somewhere I suppose. Try going deeper than pretty trinkets.

I don't think you understood anything I said. I suggest you read my post further up a bit harder. Besides, you're still bringing in this "God" character for no apparent reason.

Mathematics is OUR perceived relations of objects in space. Obviously a human perception is a bias one, it's only a perception based on our relative scale. If we were nano-sized, OUR perceptions would be very very different, and we would have to make a new mathematics for ordering things. Which is what very clever quantum physicists try to do.

However the fact remains, we, have no idea how to piece together reality, math is only our way of doing it in our image of the world. It does a very beautiful job and is incredible, but it has no true value in "reality", for in reality it does not exist. Our perceived order in the world is amazing, but thats separate to the subject in hand of the thread.

Math does not constitute reality, and if life appears to resemble math, it's only because WE have always intended it that way.

Fatal Guillotine
05-11-2011, 09:32 AM
I don't think you understood anything I said. I suggest you read my post further up a bit harder. Besides, you're still bringing in this "God" character for no apparent reason.

i think you need to read my post above and see how i associated the sequence with God

LORD NOSE
01-03-2012, 01:40 AM
up

pro.Graveface
01-03-2012, 04:24 PM
God exist even without geometry,, find your innergrandmaster first,
peace

LORD NOSE
11-13-2012, 05:14 PM
rise

Longbongcilvaringz
11-15-2012, 10:28 AM
the theory of newtons gravity, or einsteins gravity, werent just 'there', waiting to be discovered, they were constructed by human hand, artificial, in a means to explain. they do a good job as far as we know, of calculating certain things in nature, nothing more. they didnt EXIST before.

reality doesnt give a skampoe turd about ordering itself.

the abstract metaphorical world or mathematics would NOT exist without intelligent life.

NOT TO MENTION that our personal PERCEPTION of reality is a flawed one anyway, so these numbers that we use to unpuzzle the mirror of our world will always be off.

This was a really good post. Your point about science and it being the best explanation we have at the moment is particularly cogent.

John Nash
11-27-2012, 02:05 PM
His point was, even if we assume that the big bang and
all of that did occurr... and that evolution did indeed occur etc etc,,
there still has to be some "force" that governs or is in control of the
natural laws of our universe.

i thought this was the most important part of your post.

it is a good question about why are there natural laws in our universe.

well i dont believe there are natural laws in our universe because if u look at things at a sub atomic level a lot of the laws dont apply. so theyre not really universal laws and a "force" is therefore not needed to govern them.

but are these "universal laws" not just rules of thumb with incredibly high probabilites of happening (because theyre not really universal laws).

therefore i dont think we should look at the universe in terms of a place containing and obeying different rules but rather we should look at each and every situation in terms of probability.

the question will then be "why are certain statements more probable than others?"

this is a difficult question and seems to suggest that a certain "force" is making certain rules more probable.

well I think that there is a Force or Will or Consciousness on a certain level which causes all bodies on that level to perceive things happening on that level of the universe in relation to these laws. laws such as gravity.

call this Force/Will/Consciousness whatever you want but i think it exists.

I also believe that everything in the Universe is subjective

John Nash
11-27-2012, 03:10 PM
had to do this.. hope it helps on the issue at hand... :)

Quantum Mechanics Explained

written by Jason Yeldell aka My First Timbs

One must first realize how extremely complicated quantum mechanics is and how far reaching it goes.. this is why it is very difficult to explain it in a few neat sentences and paragraphs because in most cases it takes about 300 pages to describe it accurately (in addition to describing the wholly metaphysical aspect of it which we are doing here!)

but i will try to keep it simply and MAKE IT PLAIN !

1) Quantum mechanics makes us look at the world and universe as if it was a creature that possesses an external body and an internal mind. This outer body of the universe and world is what we scientists have struggled with since the beginning of "time". it is the world as we know it susceptible to natural laws and verifiable thru what i call the "uniformity of experience" (like things in like circumstances always leave predicatble results !).............quantum mechanics is merely the study and theory that encompasses not this outer body of our world view, but rather the "inner workings" behind this outer body on a subatomic level! what is found when scientists study this "inner realm" is that things dont "behave" properly.. ie.. my whole philosophy of the "uniformity of experience" becomes hogwash....this may not seem like a big deal to layppl, but this is a tremendous deal to scientists and scientific disciplines that thrive on making sense of the world we live in by relying on the fact that there is such a thing called the uniformity of experience

2) quantum mechanics studies the fundamental particles thought to be the building blocks of existence and of our universe.. however, after delving into this realm it is perceived that these partiles are actually not real things.. they are nothing but "possibilities" of consciousness, but yet do affect the material world ! now thats mindblowing! that the "stuff" everything is made of may not even be real "stuff" ! In addition.. this stuff doesnt seem to follow equations and probability assumptions we thought.. so what is it and what controls it?

3) human consciousness is controlled by quantum mechanics.. thus controlled by stuff that may not potentially be "real".. thus the human experience is flawed from ever justifying what is "reality".. the human mind may be abstract simply because the material world is not material !

the world is will and representation

DRUNKENDRAGON
11-30-2012, 11:16 AM
His point was, even if we assume that the big bang and
all of that did occurr... and that evolution did indeed occur etc etc,,
there still has to be some "force" that governs or is in control of the
natural laws of our universe.



Why must there? Even if this claim was granted, you'd still have the job of explaining what this "force" is.

This argument is a very poor one and commits the "Argumentum ad ignorantiam" or "Argument from ignorance" logical fallacy.

From what I can understand, your argument is such:

1. Geometry exists
2. We can't explain/don't know why geometry exists
3. therefore, god exists

The error in reasoning lies in between the 2nd premise and the conclusion.

Soul Controller
11-30-2012, 11:21 AM
timbs post was epic, so was ghost in the lacs.. they are both correct

to me, these geometric shapes exist due to the electrical nature of the universe..

everything is electro magnetic..

DRUNKENDRAGON
11-30-2012, 12:20 PM
peace and respect 2 u too :)

dont get me wrong.. i personally believe that religion was the most beneficial thing that ever happened to homo sapiens.. i dont confuse religion with "god".. to me they are 2 different things.

religion provides so many positive things (almost all positive)

my problem i swith the concept of an invisible supernatural higher power

I'm curious as to why you believe this. Inquisition, Crusades, Holy wars, genocide, child rape, etc. are all negative impacts due to religion. If religion never existed, would we have had holy war? So much destruction exclusive to religion, yet you'd place it above penicillin as the best thing to happen to us? Why?

I agree with you about the concept of god and religion though. it's been a while since my anthropology classes but i think isn't a consensus on the criteria of what constitutes a religion. The belief in a god isn't necessary in some cases.

Edit: I worded myself poorly, I understand that these atrocities can and do still happen absent religion. I'm referring to the ones caused purely by religion.

pro.Graveface
12-01-2012, 12:00 PM
thoughtz create reality, but who is your thinker eh?, a journey of Self.
PEACE