Fractals: A Mathematical Proof For God's Existence

[Theocrat]

I have to say that this presentation is truly amazing! It is a must-see for those who doubt God's existence as well as for those who continue to have faith in Him.

In this video, astrophysicist and author, Dr. Jason Lisle, presents a compelling argument for God being the creator of the universe. It's entitled "The Secret Code Of Creation". Dr. Lisle showcases the Mandelbrot set of numbers, their infinitude and complexity, and speaks on the One who could have created such an intricate concept.

[TER]

Love these! Thanks Theocrat!

[Natural Citizen]

It always amazes me that man thinks his little mind is able to prove something that it isn't even wired to understand. It's arrogant. That's my first reaction just looking over the editorial aspect of this.

[Natural Citizen]

What was going on there with his "fractals" was a mathematical projection of the geometry of the gateway between dimensions. Which is rooted by rotation/vibration of matter by an external source of energy. Kind of like when you have a cup of water and tap the top of it, it creates geometric patterns. That can be created in a lab just the same as it happens in the fabric of interdimensional space.

Schläfli double six is what we were seeing, technically. Which he didn't even mention. If he did, then it would have completely contradicted his "formula." It would have voided it, actually. He was clever the way he pulled it off, though. I'll give him that. It's easy when you're audience doesn't have any idea what they're actually looking at. I don't like people like that.


Anyway...I agree that God is an awesome scientist and mathematician.

But this guy's being deceptive in his explanation of what was going on there. Which is expected. He's manipulating the nature of the scientific method (special pleading...invoking God's will) in order to promote a worldview to an audience who is eager to hear their own foregone conclusions justified by "science."

[wizardwatson]

God proves who he is the same way you "prove" who you are...

"Hi, I'm God."

Statements and witnesses. He qualifies being God with prophecy. "Behold, I told you this stuff before it happened-JC" (mic drop). And also, "I told you the future in the past, because what I say goes and I do what I want-G" Isa46:10

The idea of proving God because of some sort of scientific evidence would imply there is some sort of scientific evidence that contradicts the assertion, and there isn't. It's all just the words of some men against the words of other men. But it is written that it would be this way...until the end at least. The apocalypse, literally "the revealing" will be much more than words. And direct witnesses will be in the millions. And the witnessing and believing is the the knowledge, and in this way prophecy in Isa 11:9 will be fulfilled.

God is hidden because he wants to be hidden. When he doesn't want to be, he won't be. When he doesn't want to be found, trying to prove Him with science is dumb. When he does, it's pointless.

[heavenlyboy34]

It always amazes me that man thinks his little mind is able to prove something that it isn't even wired to understand. It's arrogant. That's my first reaction just looking over the editorial aspect of this.

Well, creation itself is proof of God. Fractals is just a very specific and specialized type of proof. Not particularly Orthodox, but interesting. Mathematics are descriptive of reality, and as close to a "hard" or "real" or "true" science I'm aware of (except the various types of chemistry)

[Ender]

Well, creation itself is proof of God. Fractals is just a very specific and specialized type of proof. Not particularly Orthodox, but interesting. Mathematics are descriptive of reality, and as close to a "hard" or "real" or "true" science I'm aware of (except the various types of chemistry)

Math is also art; used to be a muse until the west made math a bore.

Everything is art and everything is math.

God is the Ultimate Artist.

[pcosmar]

God is the Ultimate Artist.

Amen and amen

[Theocrat]

What was going on there with his "fractals" was a mathematical projection of the geometry of the gateway between dimensions. Which is rooted by rotation/vibration of matter by an external source of energy. Kind of like when you have a cup of water and tap the top of it, it creates geometric patterns. That can be created in a lab just the same as it happens in the fabric of interdimensional space.

Schläfli double six is what we were seeing, technically. Which he didn't even mention. If he did, then it would have completely contradicted his "formula." It would have voided it, actually. He was clever the way he pulled it off, though. I'll give him that. It's easy when you're audience doesn't have any idea what they're actually looking at. I don't like people like that.


Anyway...I agree that God is an awesome scientist and mathematician.

But this guy's being deceptive in his explanation of what was going on there. Which is expected. He's manipulating the nature of the scientific method (special pleading...invoking God's will) in order to promote a worldview to an audience who is eager to hear their own foregone conclusions justified by "science."

Dr. Lisle wasn't using the natural sciences to prove that God exists; he was showing how numbers reveal the mind of God because they show a particular signature (in the case of fractals) which cannot be justified by random processes through natural selection as instantiated by Darwinian evolution. There was no special pleading involved, and just claiming there is doesn't prove it to be true.

[Theocrat]

God proves who he is the same way you "prove" who you are...

"Hi, I'm God."

Statements and witnesses. He qualifies being God with prophecy. "Behold, I told you this stuff before it happened-JC" (mic drop). And also, "I told you the future in the past, because what I say goes and I do what I want-G" Isa46:10

The idea of proving God because of some sort of scientific evidence would imply there is some sort of scientific evidence that contradicts the assertion, and there isn't. It's all just the words of some men against the words of other men. But it is written that it would be this way...until the end at least. The apocalypse, literally "the revealing" will be much more than words. And direct witnesses will be in the millions. And the witnessing and believing is the the knowledge, and in this way prophecy in Isa 11:9 will be fulfilled.

God is hidden because he wants to be hidden. When he doesn't want to be, he won't be. When he doesn't want to be found, trying to prove Him with science is dumb. When he does, it's pointless.

Looking back on the title of my thread, I think I should have entitled it, "Fractals: Mathematical Evidences That God Exists." I agree that we shouldn't argue from mathematics to God to prove His existence. We start with His revelation, and then we reason from there because of the impossibility (of mathematics) of the contrary.

Having said that, I believe that's what Dr. Lisle was assuming throughout his talk. The reason why fractals make sense is because God is Who He is.

[wizardwatson]

Looking back on the title of my thread, I think I should have entitled it, "Fractals: Mathematical Evidences That God Exists." I agree that we shouldn't argue from mathematics to God to prove His existence. We start with His revelation, and then we reason from there because of the impossibility (of mathematics) of the contrary.

Having said that, I believe that's what Dr. Lisle was assuming throughout his talk. The reason why fractals make sense is because God is Who He is.

And after I posted, I didn't want it to be seen as an attack on what you posted, since I didn't even read it. Just, yes, exactly what you said, taking issue with the general idea that there's more "proof" we need. So it wasn't really even at you, I know you well enough around here to know that isn't how you think, but more towards seculars and novices who don't grasp the basic concept of revelation.

[Natural Citizen]

Dr. Lisle wasn't using the natural sciences to prove that God exists; he was showing how numbers reveal the mind of God because they show a particular signature (in the case of fractals) which cannot be justified by random processes through natural selection as instantiated by Darwinian evolution. There was no special pleading involved, and just claiming there is doesn't prove it to be true.

Bullsht. The unified field behaves like a fluid. Which I briefly explained. When matter is vibrated, it forms geometry. These particles you cannot measure with his "formula". You can't measure what you can't see. You can't. And it's disingenuous for the guy to try to pawn it off like you can by changing the termsof controversy into what he wants them to be just to sell his faith. He completely ignored that aspect of it. You're dealing with harmonics here. Your doctor completely avoided having to address what was really going on there. I hate people like that.

Some of the mst dishonest people I know call themselves christians. And that guy's a prime example. It's annoying. It's really no wonder we're all the way at the bottom of the list of developed countries in the education department.

[TER]

Bullsht. The unified field behaves like a fluid. Which I briefly explained. When matter is vibrated, it forms geometry. These particles you cannot measure with his "formula". You can't measure what you can't see. You can't. And it's disingenuous for the guy to try to pawn it off like you can by changing the termsof controversy into what he wants them to be just to sell his faith. He completely ignored that aspect of it. You're dealing with harmonics here. Your doctor completely avoided having to address what was really going on there. I hate people like that.

Some of the mst dishonest people I know call themselves christians. And that guy's a prime example. It's annoying. It's really no wonder we're all the way at the bottom of the list of developed countries in the education department.

Wow. Why the hostility? I thought it was a very nice lecture.

[Natural Citizen]

This right here is precisely why we need to keep religion out of the classrooms. Particularly the science classroom.

It's perfectly fine to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. But screwing around with scientific observation in order to mislead people about what's really going on with what they're seeing is a crock.

[TER]

This right here is precisely why we need to keep religion out of the classrooms. Particularly the science classroom.

It's perfectly fine to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. But screwing around with scientific observation in order to mislead people about what's really going on with what they're seeing is a crock.

Who has been misled with this presentation? I'm not sure what your issue is with the video above, but I may have missed something. Can you better elaborate?

[Natural Citizen]

Who has been misled with this presentation? I'm not sure what your issue is with the video above, but I may have missed something. Can you better elaborate?

That was an excellent presentation, TER. There were some marvelous things being shown in it. The problem that I have with it is that he has to know fully well that what is going on there was a consequence of things beyond the the fabric of the third dimension. But he completely avoided telling us that. What he did was he continued to try to explain the unified field without moving beyond his three dimensional formula.

And I know why he did it. You start getting into the field of matter, energy and consciousness beyond the fabric of the third dimension and he has to rethink his formula. As I said, you can't actually see those fields. So his math just isn't compatible. It's easy to just say God did it. That's okay. I can agree with that. I'm not arguing against that.

It just really annoys me.

I've said before, I've sat on a couple of STEM boards. Physics is just my thing. And I've known a few christians who also shared seats. I have great respect for them and I don't really have any problems with them. None. In fact, I've learned from them. Heck, you're a doctor. Surely you've been met with similar instances.

It's the religious activism of it that causes problems. Theo likely doesn't know jack squat nothin about the more profound things we were looking at in the presentation. But he just posted it in a projectory way because he wants to promote his faith from a scientific perspective. I get it. And most people would never even be able to see what it was they were looking at there in order to actually compare it to what he was saying.

But this guy in the video has to be smart enough to see that what he's demonstrating is far more complex than 3 dimensional fractals.
I'll tell you what really ticked me off. What got me was to see it just put on some thread as if there was nothing at all to question about what we were being shown and that because it's science, then it must be all there is to it and no further questions need asking. Well what he shared was true as far as he went with it. I just think he chose to only go as far as he went with it in order to avoid more profound discussions about this magic math beyond the third dimension....which, again, was precisely what we were seing there.

[TER]

That was an excellent presentation, TER. There were some marvelous things being shown in it. The pronblem that I have with it is that he has to know fully well that what is going on there was a consequence of things beyond the the fabric of the third dimension. But he completely avoided telling us that. What he did was he continued to try to explain the unified field without moving beyond his three dimensional formula.

And i know why he did it. You start getting into the field of matter, energy and consciousness beyond the fabric of the third dimension and he has to rethink his formula. As I said, you can't actually see those fields. So his math just isn't compatible. It's easy to just say God did it. That's okay. I can agree with that. I'm not arguing against that.

It just really annoys me.

I've said before, I've sat on a couple of STEM boards. And I've known a few christians who also shared seats. I have great respect for them and I don'treally have any problems with them. None. In fact, I've learned from them.

It's the religious activism of it that causes problems. Theo likely doesn't know jack sqwat about the more profound things we were looking at in the presentation. But he just posted it in a projectory way.

But this guy in the video has to be smart enough to see that what he's demonstrating is far more complex than 3 dimensional fractals.
I'll tell you what reallty ticked me off. What got me was to see it just put on some thread as if there was nothing at all to question about what we were being shown and that because it's science, then it must be all there is to it and no further questions need asking. Well what he shared was true as far as he went with it. I just think he chose to only go as far as he went with it in order to avoid more profound discussions about this magic math beyond the third dimension....which, again, was precisely what we were seing there.

I have a feeling that he was speaking to an audience who do not necessarily have a postgraduate degree knowledge of quantum mechanics and such. I also think he was limiting his subject matter so as to keep it focused to the 1 hour presentation he was doing. I'm not getting the impression at all that he was being deceptive or manipulative and I can bet he could have a pretty interesting and knowledgeable discussion with you regarding the scientific objections you are making. I wouldn't rush to judge him or his intentions simply because he gave a small talk about fractals and how they demonstrate the beauty of God.

[Natural Citizen]

I have a feeling that he was speaking to an audience who do not necessarily have a postgraduate degree knowledge of quantum mechanics and such. I also think he was limiting his subject matter so as to keep it focused to the 1 hour presentation he was doing. I'm not getting the impression at all that he was being deceptive or manipulative and I can bet he could have a pretty interesting and knowledgeable discussion with you regarding the scientific objections you are making. I wouldn't rush to judge him or his intentions simply because he gave a small talk about fractals and how they demonstrate the beauty of God.

Well, that was some really cool stuff. It's really fun suff, too. I'm not saying the man isn't intelligent. He certainly is.And he's surely done more with his degree than I have.

We're at a point where we either have to move forward and think beyond traditional math and logic in terms of the way energy works or we have to settle for just knowing that there are things we simply aren't wired to know. My gripe is that I don't want to see legitimate questions about things that we can actually understand and benefit from being rejected simply because we're content to settle for half the equation if it suits our worldview. That's all I'm saying.

Actually, a bit offtopic, but not exactly off topic, I was reminded of this when Trump was talking about developing new technologies and promoting modern scientific thinking. I was reminded of the shortcomings of maintream science and math.

Anyway. I guess I did go off the rocker a bit there. Sorry. Probably my main problem was because theo just dropped it in a thread like a hand grenade.

[TER]

Well, that was some really cool stuff. It's really fun suff, too. I'm not saying the man isn't intelligent. He certainly is.And he's surely done more with his degree than I have.

We're at a point where we either have to move forward and think beyond traditional thinking in terms of the way energy works or we have to settle for just knowing that there are things we simply aren't wired to know. My gripe is that I don't want to see legitimate questions about things that we can actually understand being rejected simply because we're content to settle for half the equation. That's all I'm saying.

Actually, abit offtopic, but not exactly off topic, I was remindedof thiswhen Trump was talking about developing new technologies and promoting modern scientific thinking.

Anyway. I guess I did go off the rocker a bit there. Sorry. Probably because theo just dropped in a thread like a hand grenade.

Lol, no worries!

I have a very rudimentary knowledge of these things but am convinced that as time goes on, science will keep uncovering and slowly reveal (to the degree it can) that the book of Genesis is accurate, that God exists, and that it will require more blind faith to disbelief the existence of God than to believe in His existence.

[Natural Citizen]

Lol, no worries!

I have a very rudimentary knowledge of these things but am convinced that as time goes on, science will keep uncovering and slowly reveal (to the degree it can) that the book of Genesis is accurate, that God exists, and that it will require more blind faith to disbelief the existence of God than to believe in His existence.

Well, surely there must be creator. I'm not debating that.

[TER]

Well, surely there must be creator. I'm not debating that.

I agree! I was thinking about the book of Genesis and how as time goes by, science is demonstrating more and more that the basics of what is written correlates with what is observed through scientific observation. Of course, some things proposed or observed by scientists seem to contradict the book, but in time, as has happened before, these contradictions will be attributed to inaccurate hypotheses or even a poor understanding of what the book of Genesis is revealing. The more we learn, the more we will see how amazingly accurate the book is. That is something I find very exciting.

[Theocrat]

Bullsht. The unified field behaves like a fluid. Which I briefly explained. When matter is vibrated, it forms geometry. These particles you cannot measure with his "formula". You can't measure what you can't see. You can't. And it's disingenuous for the guy to try to pawn it off like you can by changing the termsof controversy into what he wants them to be just to sell his faith. He completely ignored that aspect of it. You're dealing with harmonics here. Your doctor completely avoided having to address what was really going on there. I hate people like that.

Some of the mst dishonest people I know call themselves christians. And that guy's a prime example. It's annoying. It's really no wonder we're all the way at the bottom of the list of developed countries in the education department.

You're still missing Dr. Lisle's central point. He is dealing with the philosophy of numbers and how they are evidences of God's design in creation. His use of the Mandlebrot set is just one method of showing how numbers reflect the mind of God, without which, it's impossible for the theory of evolution to explain the existence of numbers.