Zone1 Mandelbrot Sets -- Proof of God?

[Grumblenuts]

Sorry for you then if you can't understand my point.

Now an "if" apology? Passive aggressive much? Relax. I got the gist the first time.

My entire point is this. If Christianity would root its system on Jesus, and the words of Jesus alone. Many of the arguments made by Dan and other atheists don't matter any more. Christians wouldn't have to worry about "sola scripture" and all the variances contained with the the gospels and letters. Are the OT stories real or not. Doesn't matter. What about science? Neil Degrasse Tyson said it best when he said "The bible teaches. how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go". All the tangential, man applied beliefs that come from a hyper belief in the Bible, are moot. But many Christians don't see the error because this means they can't worship the Bible any more and continue to practice Bibliolatry.

Christianity hinges on "Is Jesus who he says he is and if you believe so, what did he teach". Period.

You wish to stress that Christianity should be rooted in the words of Jesus alone. So if not bibles, what sources do you recommend others use to find "who he says he is" or "what did he teach"? And what's this have to do with "Mandelbrot Sets -- Proof of God?" or with Dan Barker explaining why he's no longer religious?

 

[ding]

And what's this have to do with "Mandelbrot Sets -- Proof of God?"

The proof is all around you and in you.

 

[LibertyKid]

Now an "if" apology? Passive aggressive much? Relax. I got the gist the first time.

You wish to stress that Christianity should be rooted in the words of Jesus alone. So if not bibles, what sources do you recommend others use to find "who he says he is" or "what did he teach"?

The 4 gospels, that's it. The letters from Paul and the other apostles are historical narratives of the early church and missionary journeys and not meant to cause much of the troubles that we see today.

Do we honestly think that Paul's letter to Romans was meant to create theology and the divide between Arminianism and Reformed/Predestined theology. Nope. But why did it happen? Because Christians have made the Bible "The Infallible Word of God". Therefore inside that book must be the mysteries of God, Science, Creation, etc., that's hogwash.

And what's this have to do with "Mandelbrot Sets -- Proof of God?" or with Dan Barker explaining why he's no longer religious?

Again, many of Dan's points and the Mandelbrot Sets, if I was a first Century Christian, don't matter. Christ's theology was simple. Love your neighbor, love your God. All the things that came afterward were postulated because man's need to have a "Word of God" and then try and cram god into this canonized library of letters.

Creation vs Big Bang - Doesn't Matter
Characteristics of God - Doesn't Matter
Problem of Evil - Doesn't Matter
Variance between Stories in the Gospels - Doesn't Matter because they don't disprove who Christ said he was
Mandelbrot Set - Doesn't matter
Sola Scriptura - Doesn't Matter

All the above were never required to believe in Jesus. That's the point i'm trying to make.

Either Jesus is who he said he is, or he isn't. That's all anyone, IMO, needs to prove.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The proof is all around you and in you.

Proof of what, God? Piss off.

Nature is clearly all around, readily available to those willing to study and learn from her. The stubbornly obtuse and distant holding out for supernatural answers remain unenlightened.

Imho

eta: Same goes for atomists.

 

[ding]

Proof of what, God? Piss off.

Nature is clearly all around, readily available to those willing to study and learn from her. The stubbornly obtuse and distant holding out for supernatural answers remain unenlightened.

Imho

You prove it with every moral argument you make.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Mandelbrot Sets -- Proof of God?
240325 {post•201} alang1216 Mar’24 Vmspog: “Can you offer any 'universal' moral stricture that is from God and not from man's culture?” vlvng 240325 Vmspog00201

The proof is all around you and in you.

Laying on the floor nose to nose with my ten month old granddaughter. She grabs my big shnoitsl and twists it and pulls as if she wants to tear it off. When I say ouch and frown a bit she backs off but kept on coming so I invented a better game / rubbing noses like the Eskimo do. We had quite the giggle fest before moving on.

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

Is that a moral dictate by the one and only supernatural explanation of our existence that comes with requirements to pay homage to a supernatural belief written in a book at a time when humans on that desert region also believed the ground we walk upon is flat and had four corners.

Or is it two human’s relating to each other figuring shit out on our own not trying to make a buck off of it?

 

[ding]

I need a Captain Crunch decoder ring for that posting format.

 

[ding]

The 4 gospels, that's it. The letters from Paul and the other apostles are historical narratives of the early church and missionary journeys and not meant to cause much of the troubles that we see today.

Do we honestly think that Paul's letter to Romans was meant to create theology

Look, I'm not arguing the Word of God thingee because I think some people have made an idol of the bible. But how can you say Paul wasn't teaching theology to the early Church? It seems like that was what he was doing. He was leading the Church and teaching its theology. And all the letters he wrote document that. What am I missing?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I need a Captain Crunch decoder ring for that posting format.

Get one then perhaps you won’t be stuck. As in stuck on yourself as well.

 

[ding]

Get one then perhaps you won’t be stuck. As in stuck on yourself as well.

I'm not reading your goofily formatted posts.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I'm not reading your goofily formatted posts.

That’s why you side with the book burning Party

 

[ding]

That’s why you side with the book burning Party

These aren't the droids you are looking for.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You prove it with every moral argument you make.

Sure I do
What moral arguments have I made other than there being no logical reason for combining religion and ethics?

 

[Libby von H]

I remain convinced of the opposite after watching this video, but the guy well illustrates the inherent mathematical beauty of Mandelbrot sets while nervously brushing away his bangs every few seconds. What do you think?

It is not logically possible that a syllogism that concludes to the existence of something is wrong but proves its opposite.
Not possible. You would have to say either wrong reasoning (which however can't 'rightly' conclude to the opposite) or there are false premises , in which it concludes to nothing.

 

[BreezeWood]

Did you never have a Christian education? What you say here is only absurde. What about to visit a priest of the Holy Church and ask him for a good instruction? Perhaps he can help you to find a place where you are really able to learn.

for paradisians as jesus and those others, your easter is the day jesus was murdered ... by criminals.

- for what became christianity to substitute their religion for the reason jesus was willing to give their life ... liberation theology, self determination. the repudiation of judaism.

 

[Libby von H]

Incommensurability is the first thing suggested to me.

Math clearly arrived first (meaning from negative infinity forward). Energy and matter next. Then life and people. Then "design" and gods.

Math clearly could not have as it would have had a pre-material existence and that is what you are denying.
Logic,baby,does it all the time

 

[ding]

Sure I do
What moral arguments have I made other than there being no logical reason for combining religion and ethics?

Haven't we already gone over this? AGW? Trump? Republicans? Even your argument against religion is a moral argument. But the best part is your expectation that you believe your position should be universally accepted.

 

[Libby von H]

Creationists gonna be creationists. If it looks complex and men didn't create it then it must've been created by a god.

No, you misuse words and argue illogically.
Creation can only be proof of a Creator and not God
But if you illogically say things are eternal then why not there be an eternal God.

Plus you ape logic by creating a syllogism and then acting as if the rationality of complexity and men and the immentsity of the universe should not be explained by a higher ordering Reason. Cicero would mock you.

 

[BreezeWood]

Either Jesus is who he said he is, or he isn't. That's all anyone, IMO, needs to prove.

why is that more important what allegedly jesus claimed about himself - which was for them never the issue - rather what the prevailing religion said about itself, hereditary idolatry and the false commandments of the liar moses among them which is the true events of the 1st century, jesus's refutation of judaism.

and those others that gave their lives for the paradisian goal of liberation theology, self determination as the true path to judgement and admission by a free sprite to the everlasting.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It is not logically possible that a syllogism that concludes to the existence of something is wrong but proves its opposite.
Not possible. You would have to say either wrong reasoning (which however can't 'rightly' conclude to the opposite) or there are false premises , in which it concludes to nothing.

Sounds great. Yes, there's sort of a false premise. By "the opposite" I really meant, rather than "Proof of God," "Mandelbrot Sets" indicate, if anything, god(s) to be superfluous.

Math clearly could not have as it would have had a pre-material existence and that is what you are denying.
Logic,baby,does it all the time

No, math has neither mass nor energy. It's not an object. Not just a bunch of tubes one can dump off the back of a truck. It's ethereal rather than "material." Intangible. Timeless.
YMMV. Fine. But it's your caboose that left the tracks somewhere back there.

Cicero would mock you.

Cicero got stabbed to death. Neener, neener!