The proof of God

[NonEntity]

(02-08-2012 05:40 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  

(02-06-2012 05:40 AM)boyntonstu Wrote:  The entire argument hinges on that definition. (create) BoyntonStu

arizona_logan Wrote:I disagree with you that the entire argument hinges on that definition.

Great! Define "create".

Now, now boyntonstu, let's not go messing with folk's magic words!!
God =


--NonGodist2

Which reminds me of a thought I had last night. So often the discussion revolves around the "design" of life/the-universe/everything, as in "intelligent design." Someone made a statement about "the design" of something or other, with the implication that OBviously it had to be a higher power to envision and create such a "design." But if you substitute the word "pattern" for "design" you see that the sentence, the question, becomes much less "loaded" towards a particular conclusion. I look at a cloud or a flower and I see a pattern, I do not see a "design." At least, to my understanding, the word "design" is an active sort of a word. It implies someone or something taking an action, and that action is the act of designing. Whereas "pattern" is simply the result of actions, actions which may or may not have an intent behind them.

Stephen Wolfram wrote a wonderful book a few years back called "A New Kind of Science" in which he displayed the fact that a few simple rules, an algorithm, iterated on a massive scale, can create incredibly complex patterns. Vast and rich tapestries of deep complexity can result from a bit of code so simple that you could not imagine it unless you actually saw it happen, which is why he published the book. He shows the code, then shows the resultant patterns. It changed my entire understanding of reality.

- NonE