(January 24, 2009 at 12:08 pm)CoxRox Wrote: One of the 'proofs' or evidences that points to an intelligence or supernatural being that is perceived as 'evidence' by many scientists/mathematicians, is mathematics itself, and indeed the laws of physics. You guys say we are interpreting these 'laws' incorrectly by attributing intelligence behind them. Why is your interpretation the correct one?Because we aren't inferring more than is justifiable. You can use the elegance of mathematics as evidence of magic garden gnomes if you want, but that doesn't make it true. Our 'interpretation' is correct insofar as we don't have one: we don't read anything into mathematical laws, simply because there is nothing indicative of a Grand Lawmaker.
Naturally, there may Grand Lawmaker, but there is nothing that suggests there is.
Unless, of curse, you can argue otherwise. Else you're just making non sequitur after wild conjecture after unsubstantiated hypotheses.
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right." - Stargate: SG1
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone. - Charles Darwin
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone. - Charles Darwin
