Mathematician proves Atheism to be a false idea

Alpha Omega, Simply replace the word God with the word "intelligence".

The primary flaw in atheism is the error made in assuming that highly complex systems, structures, etc. do not require any intelligent direction. This is my point. The Fibonacci sequence, the Golden Mean or Ratio demonstrates that some incredible form of intelligence imbues all of it. This is self evident now. Atheism is a farce. Call this intelligence whatever you wish to call it. However, to deny it is just plain stupid!

You're right, we are all a bunch of morons, relative to this intelligence. However, does that make this intelligence any less real? Check out Dr. Antony Flew. He was the most notorious atheist prior to Richard Dawkins. After Flew got a good look at DNA from a nano-perspective, he became a Diest immediately. Let the evidence take you where it will. If you are opposed to organized religion, good for you. However,
to believe that super-complex and highly organized systems and structures never required any intelligence in either their establishment or maintenance is the most utterly ridiculous argument known to mankind. Sorry.

 

This isn't an assumption, it's an observation, and it has nothing to do with atheism.

Only idiots who can't make an argument for their case put forth this kind of "it's evident, duh, you're a fool if you don't believe me" argument. Are you an idiot?

No, what's ridiculous is the the argument of "However, to deny it is just plain stupid!". How about you, I don't know, back up your argument with some sort of tangible proof that intelligence is required to create complex systems. Also, Flew's argument was a bloody joke, it was just an argument from ignorance.

"Well, I don't see how we can possibly explain the origins of DNA, therefore God!" (paraphrasing his argument for why he became a deist)

Flew even later conceded that, "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction"

So, pretty much he later recanted his own basis for becoming a deist.

 

Then show the explanation of why complexity requires intelligence. In more detail than just "This is self evident".

 

Your thread was off to a great start until you mentioned the Illuminati. I don't know how anyone can take that conspiracy seriously.

 

true, you only need to prove the existence of God if you believe he will punish those that do not believe in him.... which would be crazy, no god is gonna be that petty or jealous

.

 

Well, you're missing the point. All I've done is define a word. It's a label on the outside of a box. "Mammal" means any creature that has hair and boobs, so my attempts to create some meaning out of the fact that all mammals just so happen to have those traits is a circular argument. Mammal = mammal, therefore God, therefore Alduin, therefore watch the skies because dragons are coming. It's bunk because the statement proves itself and cannot be false -- there won't be a mammal that isn't a mammal.

 

Perhaps you are too hung up on the word Illuminati. Just say a cabal of powerful people. It really isn't even secret anymore. George HW Bush, Gary Hart, Henry Kissinger -all have come right out and said "we want a New World Order". David Rockefeller, although I am not aware of him actually saying the words NWO, has admitted to promoting everything that is meant by NWO. It's really not even debatable anymore. If you doubt any of this, I can easily provide sources.

 

Are you implying that the number .618 may have been misinterpreted by biblical writers due to errors in math and the lack of the invention of the decimal point?

 

The real problem is loons thinking that when people in power use this phrase that it means some sort of conspiratorial group of elites is seeking a authoritarian one world government ruled by the real leaders of the world: lizard people.

 

Shhhhhh...or should I say....SSSSSSSSSSSS

 

0.618 unifies everything,
that the creation of things was never been by chance but in a such organized manner.
It invokes that a single set of standard was used and thus conjure towards one creator

 

It unifies everything, huh? And how does this prove creators or one creator?

 

I would believe you, but 666-618 equals 48, not 42.

 

You are uninformed. Rockefeller admitted being in a secret cabal aimed at bringing the US down to its economic knees. On youtube you can find the former defense minister of Canada testifying in an official hearing where he gives a historical rundown of the cabal's foul effects. Dr. Stephen Greer and George Green have other topics in mind but contribute to the perspective.

 

Well GOD did made Satan,
but, he did rebel with his creator.

Luke 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven

And of course he will make himself misaligned
with GOD'd Creations.

 

The reason I have a problem with the word 'Illuminati' is that it is typically used by fringe conspiracists. Everything you have said there is eminently reasonable and I would completely agree. I suppose one could use 'Illuminati' as a short hand for a secret or not-so-secret group of elites wishing to dominate the world politically and/or economically. Then using the name would just be a bit of silly hyperbole. But that is rarely the case in my experience - people who use the name 'Illuminati' generally have something more in mind. And this is certainly true in the OP's case - with claims of atheism being invented by the Illuminati, as part of a grand conspiracy orchestrated over many centuries to suppress religion (without much success, it needs to be said).

 

Then you should have no problem linking to the Youtube video and articles quoting Rockefeller. I won't hold my breath.

 

Pretty much this. It would be like someone saying "I've discovered a new species of bear!" and then following it up with "It's called a sasquatch!" The first makes you a potential famed biologist, and the second makes you look like a cryptozoologist nutbag.

 

Could it be compared and contrasted to a longitudinal study, through independent research.

 

Agree. I think "Illuminati" is really a misnomer that some people (like the OP and people who believe in lizard men) take literally. The cabal of today is more like the "legacy" of the Illuminati. Kind of like a neo-nazi, the "Illuminati" of today (and I doubt they call themselves that) really just adhere to the ideology of the original group, although they are not the same.

 

Um.... no. Sequences of numbers are not indicative of a deity. By what mechanism does the arbitrary attachment of values to arbitrary figures and shapes prove the existence of a deity?

Do you have anything else to offer?

Why are the supposed "proofs" of a deity so incredibly week?

 

good word choice!


a. To summon (a devil or spirit) by magical or supernatural power.
b. To influence or effect by or as if by magic:

 

I doubt you will get a response, I didn't and I actually started with the premise that we could assume this meant God did indeed exist. All he had left to do was prove which one so we could get on with all this oneness he was talking about.

He did nothing other than to prove that Atheism was one of the better positions to take because it removes all the subjectivity while maintaining the scientific fact that we are all connected to the universe and each other.

 

Its the same thing as why the proofs of the flood are so silly.

IF there'd been a fllood, then, with god, the bible, all of reality on the side of
this flood, it shouldnt be such a problem to find a bit of a sign of it here and there.

 

I have come to the conclusion that our environment is, in fact, a simulation. You can find out why here: http://randommusingsbykevin.blogspot.com/2013/03/reality-isnt-what-you-think-you-live-in.html