Can Math Prove God?

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 114
#91
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The fact that we can do math, proves that math is an intelligent system. 

If we were to find a complex system like Google, on a remote planet somewhere, we would automatically assume that the system is a sign of intelligence. Even if we couldn't understand how the system works, doesn't take away from the obvious sign of intelligence.
By the same logic: Rocks are some thing that we can analyze, ("doing math" is just a shorthand for analyzing it) and therefore they are an intelligent system. Thus, if we see rocks on a remote planet, we should assume that there is intelligent life there which created those rocks.

Just because something can be analyzed in an intelligent manner doesn't make it analogous to something like Google. The rock could even have many complex and interesting details. That still wouldn't imply the existence of intelligent life.

Yes. What is your point with this.
I was defending my position that math cannot have been created.

So, you admit there is a natural world, and a supernatural world?
You aren't being particularly consistent with your definition of the natural world, but if it is the same as the physical world, then yes, I "admit" the existence of the supernatural world.

Does Morality exist?
Does Math exist?
Does Time exist?
Does Gravity exist? 
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. Now I'll repeat my question: Why is it that everything in the natural world must be created?

You can if your God.
Even if he can, he never has, and never will. Most people agree that God's omnipotence does not include being able to defy logic itself, but even if you do not agree with this, I would argue that God never has and never will done anything that defies logic. If he ever has or ever will, then truth could not exist in a meaningful way. This is because of a phenomenon known as vacuous truth. If so much as one logical contradiction exists, independent of space, time, etc., then every statement is both true and false. For the following, I will simply use "-" to represent the negation of a proposition (-P means "P is false"). Suppose some logical contradiction exists (once again, regardless of where or when or if it is even within the bounds of space and time). Then P and -P are both true for some proposition P. Suppose Q is any proposition. Then -Q -> P since true propositions are implied by all other propositions. Taking the contra-positive, -P -> Q. But -P is true, so Q is also true. We can apply the same logic to the proposition -Q. It follows that Q is both true and false for any proposition Q.

Well, if God didn't exist, then nothing would exist, because God would have to create everything, so there would be no Mandelbrot set, and no computers, and no humans to type that in, and no math, and nothing.
Which argument for God am I up against exactly?
Topic's author
#92
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
By the same logic: Rocks are some thing that we can analyze, ("doing math" is just a shorthand for analyzing it) and therefore they are an intelligent system. 
Not the same logic at all.
Rocks are physical pieces of matter that we can analyze and are not exactly complex.
Math is a logic driven system of numbers and equations, that stays true throughout the entire universe.
Rocks do not stay the same throughout the universe. 

 Thus, if we see rocks on a remote planet, we should assume that there is intelligent life there which created those rocks.
Question:
If you found rocks on a remote planet, would you assume there is intelligent life on that planet?
Another question:
If you found a complex system similar to Google on a remote planet, would you assume there is intelligent life on that planet?

I was defending my position that math cannot have been created.
Your defense was just pointing out facts of math. It didn't defend any position about math not being created.

You aren't being particularly consistent with your definition of the natural world, but if it is the same as the physical world, then yes, I "admit" the existence of the supernatural world.
This is big.
You admit the existence of a supernatural world, therefore you must logically admit to the existence of the possibility of supernatural beings. 

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. Now I'll repeat my question: Why is it that everything in the natural world must be created?
Because everything that has a beginning, must have a cause. 

Even if he can, he never has, and never will.
Thats a logically incoherent statement and you know it. 

Most people agree that God's omnipotence does not include being able to defy logic itself, but even if you do not agree with this, I would argue that God never has and never will done anything that defies logic.
Logic is the way our human brain perceives and thinks out things. 
God doesn't have a human brain. 


#93
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,029
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Ya can't prove god with math but. 
You can prove Gods with math. 
As
1 god 
+ 
1 god 
= 
Gods 

I think meth can prove god.  
Sunday school teachers can also. 

#94
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Not the same logic at all.
Rocks are physical pieces of matter that we can analyze and are not exactly complex.
Math is a logic driven system of numbers and equations, that stays true throughout the entire universe.
Rocks do not stay the same throughout the universe. 
In my post, I said "The rock could even have many complex and interesting details." This was conveniently excluded when you quoted me. That rock can be as complex as you like. I'm still not going to be convinced that it was created by intelligent life.

Question:
If you found rocks on a remote planet, would you assume there is intelligent life on that planet?
Another question:
If you found a complex system similar to Google on a remote planet, would you assume there is intelligent life on that planet?
For the first question, no, and for the second question, yes. This doesn't defeat my argument. My point was that it is not the complexity of something that determines whether or not it is reasonable to believe that it was created by intelligent life.

Your defense was just pointing out facts of math. It didn't defend any position about math not being created.
This was my argument:

To create is to bring into existence. This implies that the thing previously did not exist, and now does exist. If it did exist previously, it did not need to be created, and if it does not exist now, then it has not been created.
My point was that since math has always existed, it cannot have been created.

This is big.
You admit the existence of a supernatural world, therefore you must logically admit to the existence of the possibility of supernatural beings. 
I never argued that God could not exist because a supernatural world does not exist, so I'm not sure what this does for you.

Because everything that has a beginning, must have a cause.
Your use of "natural world" in the past few posts suggests that you consider it to be the same as the physical world. In this case, I will agree that everything in the natural world came into existence at some point.

Thats a logically incoherent statement and you know it. 
I find it very strange that you would assert that I know that. How would you know what I know? Anyway, I will clarify what I meant by this. I originally asserted that you cannot create something if that thing exists regardless of your creation of it. It should hopefully be clear enough that creating something that already exists is a logical contradiction. You asserted that God can do this, presumably implying that God can do anything, even if it is a logical contradiction. My assertion was that even if it were true that God exists and is capable of such a thing, he never has done such a thing, and he never will do such a thing. I went on to explain why. I hope you can understand what I mean now.

Logic is the way our human brain perceives and thinks out things. 
God doesn't have a human brain. 
My argument did not rely on what you just debunked.
Topic's author
#95
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
In my post, I said "The rock could even have many complex and interesting details." This was conveniently excluded when you quoted me. That rock can be as complex as you like. I'm still not going to be convinced that it was created by intelligent life.
"Could be"

When you use the example of a rock, there is only a limited amount of complexity that a rock can have. So, using the example of the rock, the only complex and interesting details it could have would have to be limited. 

So, when you say," That rock can be as complex as you like." I can't make it complex as I like, because the word rock, implies a physical thing. If the rock becomes more and more complex, at some point it will no longer be a rock. 

So, my argument still stands. Rocks are not complex, and if they are, it isn't just a rock, it is something more. 
Math is complex, and it stays true throughout the entire universe. Rocks don't.

For the first question, no, and for the second question, yes.
Then you admit that a complex design demands a complex designer. 

 My point was that it is not the complexity of something that determines whether or not it is reasonable to believe that it was created by intelligent life.
But you just admitted that it was. Google is far more complex than rocks are, therefore google had to be created by intelligent life, and rock don't have to be. 
You just agreed with me. 

To create is to bring into existence. This implies that the thing previously did not exist, and now does exist. If it did exist previously, it did not need to be created, and if it does not exist now, then it has not been created.
My point was that since math has always existed, it cannot have been created.
But math has not always existed. It has always existed in our finite universe, but it is infinitely complex. 

BUT it is still only a system, and (like Google), it demands a designer. Who would also have to be infinitely complex. 

 I originally asserted that you cannot create something if that thing exists regardless of your creation of it.
If you are not infinitely complex, you can't. 
But if you have infinitely complexity, you can create anything, including infinite things. 

It should hopefully be clear enough that creating something that already exists is a logical contradiction. You asserted that God can do this, presumably implying that God can do anything, even if it is a logical contradiction. 
It's only a logical contradiction, if you are assuming God is a finite being. 


#96
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Then you admit that a complex design demands a complex designer.
You assumed that that was the reasoning that I used to reach the conclusions that I did. You assumed incorrectly. I do not admit that a complex "design" demands a complex designer. Instead of a rock and a system like Google, let's switch to a planet and a working light-bulb. I would reason that the planet was probably not created by an intelligent life form, but instead by matter naturally coming together under gravity after the birth of a star. I would also reason that the most reasonable explanation for the light-bulb would be that it was created by intelligent life. The information contained in the planet is immense, the complexity of the interactions between its atmosphere, geological phenomena, and other systems is mind-blowing. An uncountable of chemical reactions occur on its surface every second as tectonic plates shift, weather patterns and storm systems emerge, and complex processes create fascinating geological formations over time. The light-bulb on the other hand contains a few wires, so metal and glass, some electrons running through the wires, and some nitrogen gas inside the bulb. This example illustrates that simply using complexity as our standard for whether or not something had an intelligent creator is a gross oversimplification.

But math has not always existed.
How do you argue? I thought that we agreed that it exists outside of space and time.

If you are not infinitely complex, you can't. 
But if you have infinitely complexity, you can create anything, including infinite things. 
My argument did not include "math is infinite therefore cannot be created," so this seems like a straw man.

It's only a logical contradiction, if you are assuming God is a finite being.
When did I assume that? I don't recall including that in my argument implicitly or explicitly.
Topic's author
#97
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
I do not admit that a complex "design" demands a complex designer. Instead of a rock and a system like Google, let's switch to a planet and a working light-bulb. I would reason that the planet was probably not created by an intelligent life form, but instead by matter naturally coming together under gravity after the birth of a star. I would also reason that the most reasonable explanation for the light-bulb would be that it was created by intelligent life. The information contained in the planet is immense, the complexity of the interactions between its atmosphere, geological phenomena, and other systems is mind-blowing. An uncountable of chemical reactions occur on its surface every second as tectonic plates shift, weather patterns and storm systems emerge, and complex processes create fascinating geological formations over time. The light-bulb on the other hand contains a few wires, so metal and glass, some electrons running through the wires, and some nitrogen gas inside the bulb. This example illustrates that simply using complexity as our standard for whether or not something had an intelligent creator is a gross oversimplification.
Why would you assume that a planet is not designed, but a light bulb is? 
What is the reasoning behind that assumption? 

My argument did not include "math is infinite therefore cannot be created," so this seems like a straw man.
Time is not infinite, and since we have concluded that math is infinite, then it exists somewhat outside of time. 
Therefore, math is an infinite tool, that demands an infinite creator.



#98
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Why would you assume that a planet is not designed, but a light bulb is? 
What is the reasoning behind that assumption?
The most reasonable explanation for the existence of the planet is that it came together under gravity, since that is the way that planets usually form. Light-bulbs, however, do not tend to simply come into existence from natural phenomena; therefore, the most reasonable explanation for its existence would be intelligent life.

Time is not infinite, and since we have concluded that math is infinite, then it exists somewhat outside of time. 
Therefore, math is an infinite tool, that demands an infinite creator.
I agree with all of these things, including that if math were created, it would demand an infinite creator. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make by saying this. You seem to simply be reiterating what you said previously about the fact that math being infinite is not an issue if it has an infinite creator, which as I already explained, has nothing to do with the argument I made.
Topic's author
#99
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
The most reasonable explanation for the existence of the planet is that it came together under gravity, since that is the way that planets usually form. Light-bulbs, however, do not tend to simply come into existence from natural phenomena; therefore, the most reasonable explanation for its existence would be intelligent life.
What kind of planet are we talking about? An Earth like planet, or another kind of planet?
If it is an earth like planet, teeming with life, then that is far more complex than simply gravity. 
After all, still no one can answer the question of how life originated. There are atheistic theories, but none explain the aspect of how life originated. 
So, if this planet was a planet, not consisting of any life, then I would agree with you. But if it is an Earth like planet, then I would have to disagree with you, given that life cannot come from non-life. 

Also, I also have to point out that the human brain is far more complex and superior to a light bulb. In fact, there are about 200 million photoreceptors in each eye, not to mention, 92 million rods, and 4.6 million cones in just the human retina which is about .10 m thick, and 10 cm long. 
You try to connect millions of wires in that little space. 

And that is just one minute part of the body, that accounts for everything we see. 
And that alone is far more complex than a light bulb.

So, you assume a light bulb is made with intelligent design. What about us? 

I agree with all of these things, including that if math were created, it would demand an infinite creator.
So, a complex system exists, and it just comes out of nowhere? 





Topic's author
#100
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Did you receive my last response? 
#101
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,346
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
Define, "have being."
To exist in a tangible form.

You can conceptually have logic without God, you cannot conceptually have God without logic.
IFF the argument is that God isn't the origin and source of all existence, and thereby the origin and source of logic.
It doesn't matter what the argument is. Making a different argument doesn't change the point I just made.

Again, God cannot be the origin of existence because in order for him to bring existence about he would have had to first... exist.

The only way to counter that point is to argue that God could have brought existence about without existing... Which disqualifies your argument on its face from any rational consideration.

An essence which has no description without you. We created the nomenclature "two." We created and standardized a consistent logic to determine that which we see is "two." Without us, it's nothing.
You're still talking about words. Two rocks in one corner and two rocks in another corner still equals 4 rocks regardless of whether they're are any humans around to count them.

Long before life existed on earth there were two rocks on some hill and two rocks on another, those rocks still totaled 4 even if there were no humans around to recognize it.
There's no way you can confirm this in a manner that controls for our existence independently.
This sounds very much like the "were you there?" response. Seriously?

Why are you affirming a silly proposition such as that which has no mass, volume, weight, or density can be "observed"?
Red had no mass, weight, or volume. Are you suggesting red cannot be observed?

"Controlled" doesn't necessarily carry an "emotional connotation" since it requires no agent. And the consequence is identical, which is the reason the description of the term includes both "someone" and "something." Aren't you employing a "silly" semantic tactic?
No, I'm describing one.

Connotations are real things that influence how people will absorb a point being made. Every dishonest actor; politicians, used car salesmen, etc. understand this full well and master the art of using them to achieve their goals. Take my point or leave it, not interested in debating that part any further.
#102
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,346
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
First I didn't say he did exist and not exist, I said he could, as in it's within his capabilities.
Yes? Your point with this statement, if you could elaborate?
My point was to clarify what your position amounts to.

Second, existence isn't limited to the natural world.
Prove it without accidentally proving the existence of God. 
It's a definition, there's nothing to prove. Moreover, you believe God exists and that God is not part of the natural world so it's a definition you clearly agree with, so why are you asking me to prove it?

You say he can't exist within the natural world because he's infinite and the natural world is finite. In other words, he can't exist in the natural world because that would be a logical contradiction.
Imagine you create a jar. You can't fit inside the jar, but you can affect what's inside it.
Yes, and logic still applies inside the jar and outside of it, and I didn't create that.

Also, what is the contradiction? 
The contradiction is that you're claiming God is both subject to logic and not subject to logic.

You're arguing he is it's author and seem to have no response when I explain that your position amounts to him being capable of existing and not existing at the same time, but then you argue he cannot exist within the natural world because he's infinite and the natural world is finite.

The reason that last sentence qualifies as a reason is because it's a logical contradiction for something infinite to exist within a finite space. So in the former example you're arguing he is not subject to logic and in the latter example you're arguing that he is. You need to pick one before we can continue.
#103
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,327
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
....math is a very big indicator of a God....
Math  is indicator of biologic creatures * i *   with access  Meta-space  mind/intellect/concepts and ego * i *. Nothing more and nothing less. All else is mythical fantasy beliefs. Humans have beliefs, AI does not.

Finite, occupied space Universe { non-creator God }  eternally exists ----occupied space cannot be created nor destroyed is extrapolated from first law of conservation naught is created nor destroyed.  Old news from the lat 1800's

The above alone should be enough to inform logical common sense thinking humans to find the light aka relative and absolute truths in the above regards.

Occupied space ex a chair, inherently involves geometric patterns i.e. math ---one of many types of math---. Our occupied space sun is of course much more dynamically animated than a chair, ergo it also has dynamically visible changing geometric patterns, that, also complement its occupied space aka energy.

The fact that we can do math, proves that math is an intelligent system
It proves humans have access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego * i*  , ergo  it proves the existence of such Meta-space, as mind/intellect/concepts ego
* i *.  

God doesn't have a human brain.
Well you got that part correct. Non-creator God/Universe has many animal brains on Earth.  Obviously. If not also on many other planets of Universe.

Why would you assume that a planet is not designed, but a light bulb is? 
Duhh, we see light bulb design by humans. We dont see planatary design by another.   Ex pregnant woman has child. A pregnant woman of any age does not design the child?  Planets come into existence via Gravity contraction { --->INward<--} as does the sun etc.

So, a complex system exists, and it just comes out of nowhere?
The math eternally exists and is not designed. There is no logical, common sense critical thinking by you continual return ' designed ' and  "complex systems exist and your " just comes out of nowhere" is moot via your illogical, lack of common sense and lack of critical thinking regarding a finite, occupied space Universe  { non-creator God } and its dynamically eternal existence.

Math proves intelligent creatures, that, on occasion use logical, common sense critical thinking to discover math, languages, AI etc.  Math and eternally existent,  finite set, that, complements a spatially finite, yet eternally existent occupied space Universe.

Ex of one such finite. ..there can only exist, five kinds of regular/symmetrical and convex polyhedra of Universe....

Ex humans do not see and infinite set of number or languages written in the sky via telescopes or any other method.

We have mathematical, ergo Meta-space,  concepts of infinite this or that. We do not have any evidence for any infinite occupied space. Humans visually --and via instruments---   only see finite's.


#104
Math_Enthusiast
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 184
0
2
6
Math_Enthusiast's avatar
Math_Enthusiast
0
2
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to you. I have a very busy week coming up. I should hopefully be able to get back to this on Saturday. If I don't post anything by then, just send me another reminder.
Topic's author
#105
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@ebuc
Math  is indicator of biologic creatures * i *   with access  Meta-space  mind/intellect/concepts and ego * i *. Nothing more and nothing less. All else is mythical fantasy beliefs. Humans have beliefs, AI does not.
Also living beings. 
God is a living being, no?

Finite, occupied space Universe { non-creator God }  eternally exists ----occupied space cannot be created nor destroyed is extrapolated from first law of conservation naught is created nor destroyed.  Old news from the lat 1800's
No, our universe is definitely finite, from our observations so far.
If the universe was infinite, then that would be logically impossible, since the universe is expanding and to say it is infinite, would mean you would have to say it has always existed, and like I explained earlier, you can't have a world with an infinite past, only an infinite future. In other words, you have to have a beginning, and if you have a beginning, then you are finite. 

It proves humans have access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego * i*  , ergo  it proves the existence of such Meta-space, as mind/intellect/concepts ego
* i *.  
Yes! It proves the existence of an intelligent mind. 
And this mind would have to be infinitely intelligent to make math. 

Duhh, we see light bulb design by humans. We dont see planatary design by another.   Ex pregnant woman has child. A pregnant woman of any age does not design the child?  Planets come into existence via Gravity contraction { --->INward<--} as does the sun etc.
I saw you didn't answer my question/example in the previous response.
The difference between every planet, and ours is that ours is one of a kind. 
So far, we have found no habitable planets with the exact same qualities for life except for ours. 

The math eternally exists and is not designed.
A system cannot exist without a system designer. 

Math proves intelligent creatures
Like God.

We have mathematical, ergo Meta-space,  concepts of infinite this or that. We do not have any evidence for any infinite occupied space. Humans visually --and via instruments---   only see finite's.
But like I said before, using logic we can assume the universe is finite. 
#106
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,327
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Also living beings. 

* i * bilateral humans with ego is most complex living { biologic/soul } being

God is a living being, no?
There exists no creater God and no logical common sense critical thinking will ever validate such speculations.

Non-creator God, is our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe and not a biologic/soul. And no evidence of being bilateral, at in its whole, altho, I do have some earlier scenarios expressing Universe at its entropic ending being bilateral set of two ultra complex spherical ----now composed of 3D Quantum Space-time Tori---   with a flattened Vector Equililbrium existent between these two, sharing a common triangle surface.

No, our universe is definitely finite, from our observations so far.
Huh? I never ever in my life said Universe is not finite. Not sure why you went off this comment above. You misunderstand.

If the universe was infinite, then that would be logically impossible, since the universe is expanding and to say it is infinite, would mean you would have to say it has always existed, and like I explained earlier, you can't have a world with an infinite past, only an infinite future. In other words, you have to have a beginning, and if you have a beginning, then you are finite. 

Again, why your addressing me with this comment above makes no sense to me, as Ive always been a proponent of an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Unvierse. Why youve gone off thinking Ive suggested anything else makes no sense to me. 

Yes! It proves the existence of an intelligent mind. 

We know humans have access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego i is old news and has nothing to do with a creator God.

And this mind would have to be infinitely intelligent to make math.

False. Math has finite limits and finite limit of absolute matematical truths.

Time for me to time out. Sorry.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Duhh, we see light bulb design by humans. We dont see planatary design by another.   Ex pregnant woman has child. A pregnant woman of any age does not design the child?  Planets come into existence via Gravity contraction { --->INward<--} as does the sun etc.
I saw you didn't answer my question/example in the previous response.
The difference between every planet, and ours is that ours is one of a kind. 
So far, we have found no habitable planets with the exact same qualities for life except for ours. 

The math eternally exists and is not designed.
A system cannot exist without a system designer. 

Math proves intelligent creatures
Like God.

We have mathematical, ergo Meta-space,  concepts of infinite this or that. We do not have any evidence for any infinite occupied space. Humans visually --and via instruments---   only see finite's.
But like I said before, using logic we can assume the universe is finite. 




#107
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,255
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ebuc

There exists no creater God and no logical common sense critical thinking will ever validate such speculations.
Tru dat
#108
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,327
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I saw you didn't answer my question/example in the previous response.
The difference between every planet, and ours is that ours is one of a kind. 
Yes indeed, there is reason it is called ' Rare Earth '.  However, that in no way is evidence there is not bacterial life --or even viruses--  on other planets in our solar system and every solar system in Universe. We just dont have the tools to do indepth search for biologic life on any other planets and some moons, as of yet.

So far, we have found no habitable planets with the exact same qualities for life except for ours. 

Agreed, however, I knowledge of Universe --and how large is---  is increasing, tho more slowly with finding other biological life and more specifically planets similar to Earths. Weve barely touched the unknowns in our own solar system much less the known Universe, fro biologic life.

A system cannot exist without a system designer. 

False. And I have no idea where you get that illogical pathways of thought from and more so with and eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe { non-creator God }.

Like God.

There exists no creator God.  Weve been over that. Universe = non-creator God. Understand Lam?

But like I said before, using logic we can assume the universe is finite. 
Ive never ever suggessted other wise. Why you infer that I do with your comments is illogical or misunderstand confusion on your part.

You obvious not paid attention to anything in these regards what been Ive stating for years in DArt, former DART and any where Ive ever communicated on Earth for past 35 years or more. I have countless clear comments that in no way state anything about and infinite occupied space Universe. Please share the location if you think they exist here at DArt or elsewhere.
#109
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,327
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
Hey Ernest Borg, put your clothes back on before the women start returning to DArt :--))
#110
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,255
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ebuc

That's how we are getting them to return. Hi Melania.
#111
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,327
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
That's how we are getting them to return. Hi Melania.
Mostly I dont think apollo-shaped-men icons/statuettes would be enough  most women, but maybe others.

Typically I think it is men who are more enticed by visual flesh of women rather than a woman visual of flesh of men.

Symmetry of body shape --ergo geometry { ergo math }--- is significant.  I recall that in Roman time period more some what more plump women were all the rage, then in USA 60s the model skinny  model Twiggy was the new rage { in vogue ).

I also read once that Icelandic women were most beautiful over all.  And even tho Sean Connery with his hariy chest was popular, most people prefer less hair and more skin visible as attractive.  I remmember visiting my aunt with her new husband    --or just before the wedding--when I was maybe 12 or 13, and for whatever reason, I had to share the bed with him and he was hairy on back shoulders and I'm like wow, I never seen anybody with so much hair on their bodies and I didnt like it.

Does math of geometry prove God?  No, but geometry makes obvious that we see finite objects ---static and dynamic---  and based on  associated logic, common sense critical thinking, Universe { non-creator God } has a shape, and  of course it is dynamic, however, if it were possible to be outside Universe looking at Universe, we might not be able to discern any dynamic ativity or we might. I dunno.

I think Universe is lumpy to whatever degree. I think humans find proper balance of curves on human pleasant.  Call that asymmetrical balance  i.e. not straight as a 2 x 6 planck and not as round as  beach ball. 

#112
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,255
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ebuc

I think you and me and Zed should start a Magic Mike show on this site. That might  get the women back.
#113
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,327
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
Nope, I m too hairy :--)) and my relationship women has been so-so overall.  Maybe cause I lack enough empathy/compassion and resort to practical logic, common sense critical thinking so often.  I dunno.

Men have reputation for being having less access to empathy centers in their brain. I dunno.

More men explode with violence than women is historically correct I believe and most often that is not logical, common sense critical thinking way to behave.

Here is snap shot from just 2023 of such illogical behaviour. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476445/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-gender/
#114
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,255
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ebuc
@Best.Korea

Ok, I'll get B.K instead.