Zone1 Mandelbrot Sets -- Proof of God?

[Grumblenuts]

The universe may have been created or it may have always been around in some form or another. It may or may not be but I see no definitive evidence either way.

I've yet to see any compelling evidence supporting "The universe may have been created", whereas what we do observe seems to have "always been around in some form or another." I presume recurring "singularities", "universes" existing well beyond our ability to "observe" them thus far, and no multiple "dimensions" or "planes" of existence.

 

[alang1216]

I've yet to see any compelling evidence supporting "The universe may have been created", whereas what we do observe seems to have "always been around in some form or another." I presume recurring "singularities", "universes" existing well beyond our ability to "observe" them thus far, and no multiple "dimensions" or "planes" of existence.

I don't disagree with you but there was a Big Bang, the only one we know about, so something happened. What was there before I'll likely never know.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I don't disagree with you but there was a Big Bang, the only one we know about, so something happened. What was there before I'll likely never know.

A Big Bang, yes, for which energy was obviously required. Logically, we will not be able to detect possible then distant matter since the universe we observe is apparently still expanding. But we may still be looking at it wrong. The data from the fancy new space telescope may yet reveal much.

 

[alang1216]

A Big Bang, yes, for which energy was obviously required. Logically, we will not be able to detect possible then distant matter since the universe we observe is apparently still expanding. But we may still be looking at it wrong. The data from the fancy new space telescope may yet reveal much.

Werner Heisenberg: “Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.”

 

[zaangalewa]

I've yet to see any compelling evidence supporting "The universe may have been created" ...

It was not - it is.

 

[zaangalewa]

... I presume

Which philosophical and/or scientific method is this?

recurring "singularities", "universes" existing well beyond our ability to "observe" them thus far ...

Our universe expands - in a strange way which we do not understand very well - but it expands. And when you "believe" in logic then the universe was yesterday a little littler than today and the day before yesterday also a little littler than yesterday and so on and so on. So once it had a very, very, very little size - more little than a proton and was unbelievable hot because it had the same energy as it has today. And no one is able to step over the first quant-time of the universe - also not in thoughts - because "before" was no before. We can say absolutelly nothing about the situation "before". Sir Occam says in such a case "there was nothing" is the very best hypothese. And what was in the first moment when we are able to say there was something? All energy was here, all natural laws had been here, time started to run and space started to expand.

God created time. The question "what was before creation?" is a pointless question because there was no time before creation. God's powerful word of creation is a timeless word.
Augustinus (354-430 AD)

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[Grumblenuts]

Werner Heisenberg: “Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.”

Thus his blimp went kerflooey!

 

[ding]

You are a chauvinist. You think that because you are intelligent, the universe somehow was created with you in mind, that you are some kind of end product of creation.

That's a gross misstatement. Believing the universe was created to create intelligence doesn't mean it was created with me in mind, nor do I believe these things because I am intelligent. I believe these things because that's what happened naturally according to the laws of nature which are tuned for life.

But getting back to your argument, how is it simpler for happenstance to create a universe capable of producing life? Because it's not, and I'd be more than happy to prove it to you. It's much simpler and has way less assumptions to believe that the constant presence of mind created the material world such that beings that know and create would arise.

 

[ding]

Werner Heisenberg: “Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.”

Exactly. And what can be stranger than the physical world being made of mind stuff?

 

[Grumblenuts]

God created time. The question "what was before creation?" is a pointless question because there was no time before creation. God's powerful word of creation is a timeless word.
Augustinus (354-430 AD)

Nope. But you and your precious Saint Augustine are as entitled to your poorly qualified opinions as I am.

I presume

Which philosophical and/or scientific method is this?

From Google AI:

"I presume" is a verb that means to assume, suppose, or take for granted something. For example, "I presume you're tired after your drive". "Presume" can also be used in law to mean assuming something is true when there is no proof to the contrary.

 

[Grumblenuts]

That's a gross misstatement. Believing the universe was created to create intelligence doesn't mean it was created with me in mind, nor do I believe these things because I am intelligent. I believe these things because that's what happened naturally according to the laws of nature which are tuned for life.

But getting back to your argument, how is it simpler for happenstance to create a universe capable of producing life? Because it's not, and I'd be more than happy to prove it to you. It's much simpler and has way less assumptions to believe that the constant presence of mind created the material world such that beings that know and create would arise.

Are you no longer a Christian? Bible thumper? Creationist?

 

[ding]

Are you no longer a Christian? Bible thumper? Creationist?

I'm a human being. How's that?

 

[alang1216]

That's a gross misstatement. Believing the universe was created to create intelligence doesn't mean it was created with me in mind, nor do I believe these things because I am intelligent. I believe these things because that's what happened naturally according to the laws of nature which are tuned for life.

Maybe we'll be able to answer that when we know how common life is in the universe.

But getting back to your argument, how is it simpler for happenstance to create a universe capable of producing life? Because it's not, and I'd be more than happy to prove it to you. It's much simpler and has way less assumptions to believe that the constant presence of mind created the material world such that beings that know and create would arise.

I'd be thrilled if you could prove it to me but that 'proof' will require more than just logic based on our lack of evidence.

 

[alang1216]

Exactly. And what can be stranger than the physical world being made of mind stuff?

Ah, the paradox. If I could answer that question Heisenberg would be wrong.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I'm a human being. How's that?

obfuscatory, deceitful, worthless

 

[zaangalewa]

Nope. But you and your precious Saint Augustine are as entitled to your poorly qualified opinions as I am.

Bye bye, evilwilling idiot.

A last comment: When the catholic priest and physicist Georges Lemaitre found out that the universe expands he called this situation (German word now) "Uratom" - what has nothing to do with atoms (elements). It means the first very old not separable thing. Today this situation is called "big bang", what's a totally wrong expression because it was not a violent war explosion - it was very very little and it was no bang. And it exploded not into parts - it is still only one universe. The only common element is the relativelly high energy in relation to the volume of the universe. But it did not explode. The space expanded. And the universe still today expands - from all points into all directions. When I understood what this means for the universe I thought spontanously: "Typically god! Every point of the universe is always only in the middle, because it expands from all points into all directions". For me this handwriting of god is a conspicuous indication. But this makes it not easier to understand the geometry of the universe.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I'm a human being.

So is Adeel A Mangi Saint Ding. How can either one of you prove the God you worship is the one and only TRUE GOD.?

Adeel A. Mangi, a Harvard- and Oxford-trained lawyer, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, based in Philadelphia. If confirmed by the Senate, Mangi would become the first Muslim American to serve on a federal appellate court in U.S. history.

Adeel A. Mangi on record appears to be a highly moral human being and law abiding citizen who would be qualified to sit on the Supreme Court someday.


Mandelbrot Sets -- Proof of God? 240323 {post•58}

ding Apr’19 Sevcyz doth claim: “I'm like Thomas Jefferson when it comes to other people's religion or lack of religion... whatever works for them is alright by me. dvng 220413 Sevcyz00413

No Saint Ding you are not “tolerant” at all like “Thomas Jefferson”. You are a white Christian nationalist who votes Republican white Christian Power Party by your commentary on national and state politics.

nfbw 240323 Vmspog00058 to #dvng 240322 Smspog00053

 

[Grumblenuts]

Another lovely example:

Atheism does not teach you that. Atheism makes you deify yourself. Atheism's basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Your doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. Atheism leads to the practice of moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Atheism's hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. Atheists can be identified by an external locus of control. Atheists worship science but are the first to reject it.

Praying to God promotes thankfulness, humility and charity and alters the fabric of my identity to allow me to overcome obstacles and grow as a human being. When we pray, God does not do it for us, He gives us the strength to do it for our self.

 

[zaangalewa]

Grumblenuts

About what do you really "discuss"? That everyone is an idiot except you on your own because you believe in atheism? By the way: Did you notice that "Mandelbrot" and "Feigenbaum" are two Jewish names? What about if they got their mathematical ideas, intuitions and theories with the help of god?