(July 8, 2017 at 2:25 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(July 8, 2017 at 2:22 pm)Cyberman Wrote: Incoming Bill Gates quotemine in 3... 2... 1...

I don't understand
Bill Gates (probably)


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

If I fulfil my own prophecies, I just get a headache.

(July 8, 2017 at 3:05 pm)Cyberman Wrote:

(July 8, 2017 at 2:25 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: I don't understand
Bill Gates (probably)


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

If I fulfil my own prophecies, I just get a headache.

All I'm saying is that Satan could have made DNA into a mathematical code too
Satan (definitely)


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

1+1+1=1?

(July 8, 2017 at 3:10 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(July 8, 2017 at 3:05 pm)Cyberman Wrote: If I fulfil my own prophecies, I just get a headache.

All I'm saying is that Satan could have made DNA into a mathematical code too
Satan (definitely)


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

I talk to satan everytime. he told me you escaped out of 4chan. Is that all you have t offer senpai?

(July 8, 2017 at 12:30 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: So, let me get this straight.

This argument goes like this:

This thing over here appears, on the surface, to look something like this thing over here. Ipso facto they are exactly the same.

That's the problem with arguments from analogy. They are not conclusive. The fact that two things parallel each other with respect to a handful of attributes is no evidence that the parallelism extends to other attributes. Beyond that, we have good reason to believe that another process besides design can produce results that look like design. Namely, evolution. But there is an even deeper flaw in this argument from analogy. This is because the analogy to design draws a parallel between the human ability of design and the natural results of the process. The problem is that the human process of design might have a naturalistic origin in evolution as well. So the argument is presupposing that the human capacity for design does not have a naturalistic origin, otherwise the logical conclusion from the analogy would be that the capacity to design nature and DNA also has a naturalistic origin. It's a bit of misdirection referring to the processes as a result of design without examining the sources of the capacity of design. It is assuming that design isn't an artifact of natural processes, like the design itself supposedly isn't the result of natural processes. That's a circular assumption.

(July 8, 2017 at 3:17 pm)LastPoet Wrote:

(July 8, 2017 at 3:10 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: All I'm saying is that Satan could have made DNA into a mathematical code too
Satan (definitely)


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

I talk to satan everytime. he told me you escaped out of 4chan. Is that all you have t offer senpai?

I'm not from or on 4chan
Me


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

(July 8, 2017 at 8:03 am)Dropship Wrote: ...I'm a maths dummy myself, so can I ask the AF experts whether there's any logic in the notion...

No, there isn’t.

Is god real? Well, the real numbers contain both the rational numbers as well as transcendent numbers, so that sounds promising at first. They do not, however, include imaginary numbers, so God is probably not real.

(July 8, 2017 at 9:09 am)Brian37 Wrote:  That's a pretty shitty home to make if you claim to be perfect.

O best of all possible worlds!

(July 8, 2017 at 3:17 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: 1+1+1=1?

For small enough values of one, this is true.

I see some real beauty in mathematics, sometimes just from a trigonometric identity solution. This is one of my favorite pictures.