If you believe in God, refute this! - Page 115

^^ No, that's fine! But if you are eliminating, I would like to see you eliminate them scientifically / mathematically, rather than by the cliched/tiresome "no proof"method.

For example, what is the probability of quantum fluctuations producing an insanely complex entity such as the human brain, when it takes extraordinarily high amounts of directed energy to produce one Higgs Boson that too for the tiniest of the tiny seconds, so fleeting as to be governed by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle  for its brief existence and for these fluctuations to remain stable enough to produce matter particles that somehow arrange themselves in patterns and can start contemplating about how they and the rest of the universe came to be?

In other words, I would like to see some heavy-duty science/math/logic when adopting / refuting a resolution :)

  Okay let's resort to the Math to see if we can garner any clues from that ..

cos(x) + i*sin(x) = (e^(i*x) + e^-(i*x))/2 + i*(e^(i*x) - e^-(i*x))/(2i) = (2*e^(i*x))/2 = e^(pi*x)  

 ^^^  We know that  cos(x) = (e^(i*x) + e^-(i*x))/2  AND  sin(x) = (e^(i*x) - e^-(i*x))/(2i) 
              
                                                                         Which means 

e^(i*x) = cos(x) + i*sin(x),   ...Now as we  replace X with Pi ( To indicate the rotational motion )
e^(i*pi) = cos(pi) + i*sin(pi) = -1 + i*0 = -1

 So ... e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0    =   G  ☺️
 
 ^^^^^   Hahaha ...That's the grandeur of the God ...the mighty entity that regulates everything ..even the math ..even before humans had discovered that ... 😛

 Ps : That's Euler's equation ...And even if one solves that with Maclaurin series with complex numbers


 Vintu ... 

^^

A beautiful equation indeed! Alas, it's beauty would be lost on 99.99% of the folks anywhere in this world let alone this forum so I am inserting a link here for those interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity#Mathematical_beauty

What Euler did in his equation is LINK five fundamental mathematical constants, namely, 0, 1, p, e, and i.

0 is the additive identity, 1 is the multiplicative identity, p is the circular constant, e is the base of the natural logarithms and i is the imaginary unit. There is absolutely no reason for these numbers to be related but they are in such an elegant manner all thanks to Euler.

One more reason why we should focus on Math if we truly want to understand nature. Science is just a clumsy way of explaining the underlying Math.

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

  Okay let's resort to the Math to see if we can garner any clues from that ..

cos(x) + i*sin(x) = (e^(i*x) + e^-(i*x))/2 + i*(e^(i*x) - e^-(i*x))/(2i) = (2*e^(i*x))/2 = e^(pi*x)  

 ^^^  We know that  cos(x) = (e^(i*x) + e^-(i*x))/2  AND  sin(x) = (e^(i*x) - e^-(i*x))/(2i) 
              
                                                                         Which means 

e^(i*x) = cos(x) + i*sin(x),   ...Now as we  replace X with Pi ( To indicate the rotational motion )
e^(i*pi) = cos(pi) + i*sin(pi) = -1 + i*0 = -1

 So ... e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0    =   G  ☺️
 
 ^^^^^   Hahaha ...That's the grandeur of the God ...the mighty entity that regulates everything ..even the math ..even before humans had discovered that ... 😛

 Ps : That's Euler's equation ...And even if one solves that with Maclaurin series with complex numbers


 Vintu ... 

This doesn't explain anything. Like much of the discussion here, what you just said is merely circular reasoning - formula is too good|brilliant|beautiful to be natural, therefore is supernatural or god exists - this is odd.

How can you even attempt to prove anything if you can't even define it ?

1+3 = 4 thus jhinga la la exists .. yayyy !!😆

Originally posted by: ichhadhari

This doesn't explain anything. Like much of the discussion here, what you just said is merely circular reasoning - formula is too good|brilliant|beautiful to be natural, therefore is supernatural or god exists - this is odd.

How can you even attempt to prove anything if you can't even define it ?

1+3 = 4 thus jhinga la la exists .. yayyy !!😆

 Icchadhari ... 😛


  Hahaha ..Yay ! ..nothing can be proven or explained to someone who is deadset against acknowledging the existence of something that binds all forces together so well. Who invented Math ? The God ? Or Euler  or You ?  Sir ? 😆  ..

 I bet that equation defo ain't as frivolous as  1 + 3 = 4 ...😆  ...It does involve all branches of Math Algebra, The Complex ( It's Vector interpretation which is needed to take into account their argument )  numbers, Calculus  and define their coherence...

 As the Math applies everywhere ...Even to the the stellar bodies and their proper motions , The Galactic Redshifts ..the equation becomes much eminent ...

  But people who have made their decisions to overlook everything and remain wallowed into their cozy world of denials are welcome to do so ..Such specie is alluded to as the Agnostics .. 😆 And nothing can change their Belief in Disbelief ...😆
 
 Yeah ..You are welcome to join the league ...I already have notions of you ...haywire off your face, attired in your new spiffed feather kilt, with me blowing the bagpipe to your Jhinga la la dance .. 😆

 Vintu ... 😛

Originally posted by: ichhadhari

Like much of the discussion here, what you just said is merely circular reasoning - formula is too good|brilliant|beautiful to be natural, therefore is supernatural or god exists - this is odd.

False attribution may be, but definitely not circular reasoning. The premise (Euler's identity) had not assumed the conclusion (God exists). At the most you could accuse Vintage.Wine of jumping to conclusions but in the meantime get your fallacies straight.

BTW, bringing in Euler's Identity as the premise to lead to a conclusion of God could be considered a valid deductive argument. Now, you could contest the conclusion by challenging how the connection is being made between the interconnectedness of the fundamental mathematical constants and the cause for the said interconnectedness and whether that cause is but a  strange coincidence, purely circumstantial if you will, as opposed to being purposefully caused by a God-like-mind as some people seem to be suggesting.

Originally posted by: ichhadhari

How can you even attempt to prove anything if you can't even define it ?

If you followed the discussions carefully, you would have noticed that the topic had veered off into the origins of the universe and the possible cause(s) behind existence itself. The fact that Vintage.Wine interspersed his post on Euler's identity with a bunch of emoticons, coupled with the fact that he clearly stated that he is looking for clues, should have clued you in to the intention behind that post.

Originally posted by: ichhadhari

This doesn't explain anything.

1+3 = 4 thus jhinga la la exists .. yayyy !!😆

Actually, I think it explains a lot but I can make an educated guess as to how it might not be apparent to people afflicted with debilitating cretinism.

And your insipid argumentation (of 1+3=4) posed to rival that of the poster who brought in Euler's identity to make his case,  is only suggesting that if you take pile of guano and add 3 more piles of guano to it you would ultimately end up with one big pile of guano. On the other hand, Euler's Identity has  profound implications to folks who are mathematically/philosophically inclined.

Where is Birdie? Did he find God already? 😆

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

BTW, bringing in Euler's Identity as the premise to lead to a conclusion of God could be considered a valid deductive argument. Now, you could contest the conclusion by challenging how the connection is being made between the interconnectedness of the fundamental mathematical constants and the cause for the said interconnectedness and whether that cause is but a  strange coincidence, purely circumstantial if you will, as opposed to being purposefully caused by a God-like-mind as some people seem to be suggesting.

At times I ve been wondering if the mathematical laws are not in nature but in human mind! The surprising thing is the 'laws' and 'mathematics ' designed by human beings are found to fit in. No one thought that non-Euclidean geometry will be of any use but Einstein found that to be useful to develop his General Theory of Relativity.Ideas developed by mathematicians as intellectual exercise without any link to physical world were found to be useful to describe the physical world after years.It does not necessarily mean that nature follows a law...it may mean we are able to find a model to predict the course of nature, may be we go on revising our model , refining it like weather forecasting model ...As for coincidences...it is easy to dismiss a lot of stuff as mere coincidence but when we look back and take stock,  their sheer volume and impact  is too astounding to be  dismissed 🤔

Originally posted by: _Angie_

At times I ve been wondering if the mathematical laws are not in nature but in human mind! The surprising thing is the 'laws' and 'mathematics ' designed by human beings are found to fit in. No one thought that non-Euclidean geometry will be of any use but Einstein found that to be useful to develop his General Theory of Relativity.Ideas developed by mathematicians as intellectual exercise without any link to physical world were found to be useful to describe the physical world after years.It does not necessarily mean that nature follows a law...it may mean we are able to find a model to predict the course of nature, may be we go on revising our model , refining it like weather forecasting model ...

As for coincidences...it is easy to dismiss a lot of stuff as mere coincidence but when we look back and take stock,  their sheer volume and impact  is too astounding to be  dismissed 🤔

A lot of this boils down to what exists objectively.

Do logic and math have an objective existence independent of the human brain? Are we discovering Math in nature or did we invent Math and began understanding nature in terms of what we invented?

I don't know how meaningful it is to eliminate the conscious mind (inside of which the laws exist presumably) from nature and then think about how nature exists in reality without a mind being there to perceive it.

How do you take out the mind and then "think" what exists? Who is doing the thinking exactly?

 
 Hahaha .. 😆

   Exactly my point ...😛  ... .. My question is can Consciousness exist without an associated material body ? The brain cells ? ..If it does then it  should be included / accepted as a part of super symmetry ...The Graviton is a imaginary particle ..that engenders mass less  gravity. 

  W & Z bosons along  with Electromagnetism and strong gluon interaction constitute the Super gravity ..which is still insufficient to foster gravitational interaction ..( In a mass less state ) ..So that conscious element which might exist regardless of a material body / the cells is what gravitons are all about ..Thus making consciousness the foremost energy at the time of creation / big bang or whatever that happened back in time ..

                                                                                  OR

  May be all that exists is only the consciousness ...and hallucinations happen because of its distortion  ..it can be true ..Ask those who do drugs ..😊 They get to see things that are too cranky, too illusive to be true ..May be we as one conscious energy, with even a slightest fluctuation in its level, see everything that doesn't even exist in a material realm ...Which means nothing was ever created .and nothing exists ...This is weird feeling ..Its kinda sad to realize that Me , K, Angie , Birdie ( And Birdie was a HE ? 😲 ..WTH .. ), Return to hades, Freethinka , Aya , Zorro, Icchhadhari 😆  and even the Stein full of wine that I have in front of me doesn't exist ...😭  ...I ll better down that before I become  glum nuff to quit drinking ...

 Vintu ...  😆