Could this help open the mind of an Agnostic or even an Atheist?

[Beggar for the Spirit]

Hi Everyone,

 

I have recently been doing some extra research about the Universe and how it was created.

In doing so, I started to consider a different way of how a person who does not believe in God or a Creator nor in "Intelligent Design" could be reached. This is a very different approach, maybe not for everyone, but this line of reasoning could help certain people, especially deep thinkers or "intellectuals".

 

So in my research I came across some very intriguing  and powerful reasoning that  I wanted to share with all of you to see if you think that this reasoning below could help certain agnostics or atheists.

Maybe you know of a family member or a co-worker that could benefit from considering the reasoning points below. Please let me know your thoughts, what you like about these or what could be improved?

Not all the points below have to be used together, maybe just a few can be used to help others.

I appreciate your thoughts, thanks! 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The reasoning below comes from the thought of this famous scripture:

***ROM 1:20***
For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.
 

By asking these series of questions, possibly an Agnostic or Atheist could see "intelligent design" or even come to believe in the Creator!

 

> Are there laws of mathematics in nature? 

ANSWER:

Yes - throughout all of the universe, even including the quantum world.

(Example)

It was recently discovered at Oxford University that a chain of atoms has tension that comes from the interaction between the spins causing them to magnetically resonate.  They then found a series (scale) of resonant notes: The first 2 notes show a perfect relationship(symmetry) with each other. Their frequencies(pitch) are in a ratio of 1.618 - that is the famous “Golden Ratio”!

This is an example of mathematical laws found at the smallest scales of the universe.

> Are the laws of mathematics physical or  conceptual (being concepts/ideas only in the mind)?

ANSWER:

Math is not anything physical. For example, the physical number "4” is just a written symbol or representation of the quantity of 4 items.

You cannot touch or grab a law of mathematics. But mathematics is only conceptual, abstract, only understood by an intelligent mind.

> How would you define what numbers are?

ANSWER:

This is difficult even though everyone knows what numbers are, but to define them is not easy as these are not physical objects.

1 of the best definitions is:

“Numbers are the concept of quantity”

So number are not the objects, they are the concept of the quantity of the objects.

So numbers are also "conceptual" = only understood by an intelligent mind.

> Are the laws of mathematics universal or only in certain parts of the earth or universe?

ANSWER:

Universal - For example, in Asia 2 + 2 = 4 and this is true on mars or in another galaxy.

The mathematical laws are transcendental truths, existing even outside of nature as nature obeys and is governed by the laws of mathematics

> Are the laws of mathematics invariant(unchanging) or do they change with time?

ANSWER:

Invariant - they never change, no matter how much time.

For example, the Pythagorean Theory applied 100 years ago, 500 years ago, still applies today

However, things invented or created by humans change with time, they are not invariant.

> Did the laws of mathematics come from the universe itself?

ANSWER:

No, the universe was built upon these laws of mathematics and obey these mathematical laws right from the very beginning.

So the universe cannot be credited with creating the laws of mathematics if it was already obeying the laws of mathematics from its birth.

  (example)

A baby in the womb cannot be credited with “creating” the umbilical cord as the baby was already attached and using the umbilical cord from the beginning.

> Did humans invent the laws of mathematics or did they discover these?

ANSWER:

Humans have been able to formulate numbers into equations, but numbers and the laws of mathematics existed before humans did.

Humans only discovered the laws, these laws were already in existence. The universe was already obeying laws of mathematics before humans existed.

  (Similar Examples)

Did humans invent atoms or did humans discover these building blocks of nature which were already in existence?

The laws that explain the way planets revolve around the sun are called Kepler’s laws - Did Kepler create or invent these laws? Or did Kepler simply discover these laws that already existed?

 

> Tough Question to ponder:  Why does the entire universe obey math?

* FINAL QUESTION: So if the laws of mathematics were not created by humans but yet these laws can only be understood by the intelligent minds of humans and these laws of mathematics rule the entire universe on every scale, then where did these laws of mathematics come from?

Would not all of these universal, invariant, complex, and beautiful laws of mathematics require a superior intelligence?

Edited March 16, 2016 by carlos
Improved formatting

[Beggar for the Spirit]

Sorry for the formatting 

 I am working on it right now. For some reason when you transfer over something from a Word Document, this doesn't accept all of the formatting. So I will try to fix this and make it look better, again sorry.

[New World Explorer]

Very good reasoning ! I like a lot of points !

[hatcheckgirl]

Somewhere on this forum was posted an article A LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE by R. BAUMGARDNER AND JEREMY D. LYON.  It was quite an interesting read and  I managed to glean a few similar arguments, though in all honesty a lot of it went over my head.  But it uses the idea of language proving the existence of God. Mathematics, being in itself a language also, was a part of his argument, along with DNA and other natural languages.

 

Neil, I found your arguments very logical and a lot simpler to try to explain.  It's a very interesting research project!

 

 

[Pjdriver]

Outstanding Neil! I love it. Can I steal it and use it?

It's  a powerful argument to the reasonable mind.  

 

[New World Explorer]

2 minutes ago, Pjdriver said:

Outstanding Neil! I love it. Can I steal it and use it?

It's  a powerful argument to the reasonable mind.  

 

How can you steal it if I have already stole it LOL

Yes very powerful reasoning. Just brilliant !

[Pjdriver]

11 hours ago, Gregexplore said:

How can you steal it if I have already stole it LOL

Yes very powerful reasoning. Just brilliant !

Ongaurd! Hand it over, explorer!  

 

It it a good thing we evolved a brain so we could do the math.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Pjdriver

[carlos]

This is sound reasoning, Neil. Since there are natural laws, who set those laws? Ultimately it's the same argument of order and design requiring an intelligent designer. A related argument I read once is why are we humans able to understand the natural laws. If we appeared only by chance, the universe doesn't need to work in a way that is logical or comprehensible to our mind. And yet, we can formulate equations to describe any natural process in the universe. That strongly hints that our mind was designed by the same intelligence who established those natural laws.

 

After many years of reading all kinds of philosophical arguments for the existence of God, I came to the conclusion that most people don't really need those. Few people actually argue that there is no Creator. Most of those who deny God's existence are just repeating what they have been taught or they have trouble harmonizing the existence of suffering and wickedness with a loving and almighty God. When presented with a simple arguments such as "if I told you this table made itself or simply appeared by chance, what would you think of my mental health?" most backpedal and admit there's possibly an intelligent Creator. Many who call themselves Atheistsimply don't believe in organized religion or in the Bible. So in most cases I just resort to that simple argument when discussing with people.

 

However, for a small group of intellectual or philosophy-oriented people such arguments could actually help them at least to consider the existence of a Creator.

 

Edited March 18, 2016 by carlos
The gremlins duplicated the text.

[Pjdriver]

12 hours ago, carlos said:

 

 Most of those who deny God's existence are just repeating what they have been taught or they have trouble harmonizing the existence of suffering and wickedness with a loving and almighty God. When presented with a simple arguments such as "if I told you this table made itself or simply appeared by chance, what would you think of my mental health?" most backpedal and admit there's possibly an intelligent Creator. Many who call themselves Atheistsimply don't believe in organized religion or in the Bible. So in most cases I just resort to that simple argument when discussing with people.

I read something  in the book "The edge of Evolution" I thought was a good reply when a so-called atheist brings up wickedness, suffering, or the hypocrisy of false religion as an argument for his  evolutionary views. 

This is the gist of what it said:

'Regardless of our opinion of the designer and his character,...whether one thinks life was a worthwhile project or not...wether the designer of life was incompetent, a dope or a demon or a deity----thats a topic on which opinions have differed greatly over thousands of years. Of the many possible opinions only one is indefensible,...the one held by Darwin. Denying design simply because there is pain and hypocrisy exist in the world is a failure to look the Universe fully in the face.'

 

Evidence of design and people's opinions of the Designer  are not inextricable topics.

Just because we don't like the architectural design of a house has nothing to do with the fact that it had a Designer. 

Edited March 18, 2016 by Pjdriver

[Sally]

Brother Neil,

 

Here are two arguments, one reasoning  against creation/God and the other reasons for creation/God"

 

Against:  https://nathandickey.wordpress.com/2015/06/28/countering-theist-apologetics-the-first-cause-argument/

 

For  http://factsandfaith.com/gods-existence-best-explains-the-necessity-of-an-uncaused-cause/

 

I hope this helps all to understand how skeptics think.

[RaymondG]

Do they think?

 

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

On the positive side, I see a lot of sense in using reasoning to discuss things to do with Jehovah, creation, the bible itself and Jehovah's upcoming kingdom.

 

For instance, when we look at Genesis 1:27 & 28 we see what Jehovah's purpose is. Genesis 1:1 says that Jehovah had the power to create all these things and in Isaiah 40:26 as well as Romans 1:20 underline all of that.

 

The reasoning is, "If you had all the power to create all things, and your purpose was to see the human family populate and transform the earth into a beautiful garden, would yougive up simply because a few of your creation fail?"

 

 And when someone tries to say that Jesus is God, a similar argument can be made with Job 1:6 and 2:1 compared with the Luke account of the temptation of Jesus. "Do not the passages in Job show that Satan knows the players in the act, who everyone is? If Satan knew that God himself was Jesus, would he bother trying to tempt him with things He already owns?"

[GStorrs46]

Neil,

 

   I think you have a number of good arguments that you present. In the end almost all con-

vincing arguments that I have read are arguments from design and the demonstration of

the impossibility of chance to produce the same result. "Like a legion of monkeys typing

endlessly would eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. " To any who have struggled

for faith, the first realizations of these truths is like  the windows of the universe opening

and the arrival of a new day. My best wishes in your efforts in that regard Neil.

 

GStorrs46