Can God be seen in the maths?

[ignoramus]

soon it'll be irreducible complexity ....but....but ....some scientist ....eye!

[brewer]

jesus christ, another "drag science/math into god exists" talk. Science has nothing to do god. It neither proves nor disproves. 

Have god come talk to me and I might consider it's existence. I'd have to rule out hallucination, probably by third party observation and completely understand a butt load of Thorazine.

[Brian37]

jesus christ, another "drag science/math into god exists" talk. Science has nothing to do god. It neither proves nor disproves. 

Have god come talk to me and I might consider it's existence. I'd have to rule out hallucination, probably by third party observation and completely understand a butt load of Thorazine.

No, there is no splitting the baby. Science not only does not need a God of the gaps to fill in the blanks, there simply never was such a being. God/god/deity/entity claims are merely reflections of humans qualities. No different than when a cat or dog looks in the mirror thinking the reflection is a separate animal. It is our own projection of our own desires, fears and narcissism. 

Saying that we have not lived the future yet does not mean we have to cling to old and bad claims.

[pgrimes15]

.  People who say "dna is like a computer program" have that comparison entirely backwards. It's not even a very apt comparison, since dna isn't so much a computer program as it is a machine language.

No.
You are falling into a trap.
DNA is not a set of instructions or code.
It is a chemical.
The DNA "code" is the description of a (very large and complex) molecule.
If you start to say that it is machine code (which is a form of programming language) then you open yourself to the question "who wrote the code?".
DNA is a molecule and everything that happens with it is chemistry.

Regards.

Grimesy

[The Grand Nudger]

.  People who say "dna is like a computer program" have that comparison entirely backwards.  It's not even a very apt comparison, since dna isn't so much a computer program as it is a machine language.  

No.
You are falling into a trap.
DNA is not a set of instructions or code.
It is a chemical.

Right, just like a machine language isn't a set of instructions or a code.  Just a description of the operation of a system.  If we had chemical computers chemicals would -be- the machine language.  A trap with no snare is hardly a trap.

The DNA "code" is the description of a (very large and complex) molecule.

Just like a machine language in computation is a description of a very large and complex array of circuits.  

If you start to say that it is machine code (which is a form of programming language) then you open yourself to the question "who wrote the code?".
DNA is a molecule and everything that happens with it is chemistry.

Machine language is used to -make- programming languages (that's why a program is classified as higher order coding, as instruction), but it exists beneath and independent of them. All machines have a machine language, even ones which can't be programmed.  A simple lever is either on or off, up or down, rising or falling, heavier on one side or the other...so too..is the most complicated circuit.  The machine language is simply how we describe that state or set of states. A comparison between dna and machine language works, whereas a comparison between dna and a program doesn;t...and., again, has the whole thing backwards. It;s -because- of machine language and the constraints of natural law on the possible states of a machine that the higher order programming works..and it;s because of those same laws that DNA works and can be leveraged, itself..to create higher level programming like behaviors. Still, the whole thing is a useless point of personal interest..since machine languages, programming languages, and computers as a whole (biological or mechanical) can and do emerge in the absence of design or a designer. All that is required for any of it to exist and work are natural laws amenable to information processing, and materials capable of leveraging those laws. Both of which obviously exist, regardless of whether or not some god does.

That's the amusing part, for me. Even if there were a god, it demonstrably isn;t required to play a part in the existence of anything referenced in support of -it's- existence..in this regard. As always, god is a useless addition. Not only is the inference flawed, and the propositions factually incorrect...it wouldn't matter if the conclusion were accurate. That's about the shittiest place that any argument for anything can be in. There;s literally no other way to fuck it up, it;s as fucked up as it can possibly be, lol.

[pgrimes15]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_code.

"Machine code or machine language is a set of instructions executed directly by a computer's central processing unit (CPU). Each instruction performs a very specific task, such as a load, a jump, or an ALU operation on a unit of data in a CPU register or memory. Every program directly executed by a CPU is made up of a series of such instructions."

[Edwardo Piet]

Some people see God in grilled cheese sandwiches too.

When the reality of the matter is: a grilled cheese sandwich is GOD!

[Foxaèr]

Some people see God in grilled cheese sandwiches too.

When the reality of the matter is: a grilled cheese sandwich is GOD!

Depends on the cheese.

[The Grand Nudger]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_code.

"Machine code or machine language is a set of instructions executed directly by a computer's central processing unit (CPU). Each instruction performs a very specific task, such as a load, a jump, or an ALU operation on a unit of data in a CPU register or memory. Every program directly executed by a CPU is made up of a series of such instructions."

A wiki written by a programmer, not a circuit manufacturer, lol.  Yes, machine code does all of that...as I already said.  It does not do so, however..without a program or direct prompt.  Yes, every program is made up of machine language, because machine language is the system description out of which the abstraction of programming language is comprised....as I already said. The machine language itself, exists independantly of any program or instructions or prompts. Any system, of any kind, has a machine language. Even accidental or random systems. If a stick falls on a rock and overhangs it has a machine language. It's i/o, 1/0, Left/right, Falling or rising. Just like a circuit. That language does not need to be designed, it doesn;t even need to be observed, it could be the proverbial fallen tree in a forest. Having a machine language, itself, does not grant the system the ability to execute a program...for that it needs program memory (showing my age here...but early gaming consoles had a machine language but required external cartridges of program memory to execute their function - to play the game).

Do you want to have a wiki fight, or discuss why the argument from code -or- machine language is flawed? If you want an accessible and authoritative source on how and why computers work, and what is what..try Nand2Tetris, not wiki.....

Personally, I find it far more useful to accept what a person gets right, or semi right in their god arguments...and start from that point - rather than worry about a trap that will never be sprung, or argue every word. From that point of agreement, we can then show that a valid inference and sound propositions leads to directly the opposite of the god conclusion - as it does in the case of dna, programming, or machine language.

-If- they think those things are informative, somehow, as to the existence of a necessary designing god...then that necessary designing god does not exist, not by means of arguing with every jot and tittle of their propositions..but by accepting them and demonstrating that such a god is not necessary, at all..with reference to those things they decided to leverage in their inference.

---

We can, if you like, explore the "where does the program come from "trap" - it's going to fail for the same reasons a the dna argument failed.  It comes from environmental prompts.  It comes from the behaviors of the materials out of which the system is comprised.  It -can- come from a designer...as some high level languages do...but computers are, themselves..now capable of writing code....so, the designer -if- there is a "designer" doesn't have to be intelligent, or sentient, or a being of any particular description.  

Yet again we see that the god proposition is useless.  Yet again the inference is flawed, the propositions are factually inaccurate, and the conclusion irrelevant.  Yet again it's as fucked up as it can possibly be.

We can do the same for fine tuning, even though we might think that the idea as expressed and used by the religious is bunk...we can accept for purposes of argument that the universe is fne tuned and show how this, too, -if true- argues against their necessary creator.

"God" is a thoroughly bankrupt idea.

[SteelCurtain]

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.