William Lane Craig and the Kalam Cosmological Argument

[KillCarneyKlans]

OrphanPip
Signature in the Cell is a joke that misrepresents molecular biology in order to convince the layman of Intelligent Design. It's the same old **** from Meyers about the impossibility of generating "information." Meyers is a mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute who has no respect for intellectual honesty, he deliberately misleads his readership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
On June 23, 2009, HarperOne released Meyer's Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. Philospher Thomas Nagel submitted the book as his contribution to the "2009 Books of the Year" supplement for The Times, writing "Signature in the Cell...is a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04...itc033471.html
A new review of Signature in the Cell is just out in The Journal of the International Society of Philosophical Enquiry. It brings to the forefront of the overall debate the perspective of a software engineer and logician. Specifically, Harry Kanigel, former executive director, Information Technology at UBS Investment Bank, whose expertise is in computer algorithms. So he knows a thing or two about digital information. His reviews starts strong:

Stephen C. Meyer changes the game in the intelligent design fight with Signature in the Cell, a big book that methodically, but agreeably, constructs an argument that intelligence in some unspecified form, is responsidble for the bio-molecular machinery in the cell and, therefore, for first life. Meyer's argument is, at its heart, logical and statistical but also strives for a reality check by engaging the reader's day-to-day experience of cause and effect.

Despite how much you despise "the Discovery Institue"

http://www.stephencmeyer.org/biography.php
Meyer has argued that the intelligent design field is still in its infancy and that vital evidence of a designer’s “signature” on life only emerged as recently as just 10-15 years ago. His work in biological information represents the cutting edge of the argument for design.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/educa...wkins-refuses/
Stephen C. Meyer asks Richard Dawkins to Debate, Dawkins Refuses. Anika Smith has noted at Evolution News and Views that Richard Dawkins, author of the recently published book The Greatest Show On Earth, refuses to debate Stephen C. Meyer, author of the recent book The Signature in the Cell. Dr. Meyer challenged Dawkins to a debate when he saw that their speaking tours would cross paths this fall in Seattle and New York. Dawkins declined through his publicists, saying he does not debate “creationists.” “Dawkins’ response is disingenuous,” said Meyer.

It’s a fair question to ask why Richard Dawkins won’t debate even a creationist, but much more telling that he won’t debate Dr. Meyer, who wants only to discuss science. Dr. Dawkins​ calls “Life” the Greatest Show On Earth, yet he will not debate someone in how that show was produced?

Signature in the Cell proposes to revisit the origins controversy particularly in light of the discovery over 50 years ago of DNA and the enormous advances in our knowledge of cellular biology and information theory since then. Meyer does this using the motif of his personal journey toward understanding what he calls “the DNA enigma.” This enigma is “the mystery of the origin of the information needed to build the first living organism.” Until such a first life exists Darwinian evolution cannot commence.

Well, there's more than enough evidence that, that isn't true

http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...ml#comment1148
On the average, in any randomly-selected set of integers, 1 in every 37 will be a multiple of 37. Applying this principle to the 127 values represented by the 7 words of Genesis 1:1 and their various combinations, it is to be expected that 3 or 4 will have 37 as a factor. As has been shown here, there are actually 23 - ie over 6 times the expected number!

The reality of the appearance of 37 (now including its numero-geometrical analogues, 7, 13, 19, 61, 73 and 121, besides its multiples, 666 and 703), among the various particle counts of the 20 canonical amino acids is now supported in the writings of two experts in the field of genetics, viz. shCherbak and Rakocevic, and in the writings of a significant contributor to the nascent field of bioinformatics, Boulay.

"When evolutionary biologists use computer modeling to find out how many mutations you need to get from one species to another, it's not mathematics — it's numerology ... They know nothing about biological systems like physiology, ecology, and biochemistry ... Whatever is brought together by sex is broken up in the next generation by the same process. Evolutionary biology has been taken over by population geneticists." - Lyn Margulis

[OrphanPip]

So, in summary:

Signature in the Cell was published by a popular press for mass market and not by an academic publisher, and this publisher sings the praise of its product in its descriptions.

It was reviewed favourably in an irrelevant magazine with a highly pretentious name.

Dawkins refused to debate Meyer because he's a sham. And somehow we're to take this as a poor reflection on Dawkins.

And then a quote mined from Lynn Margulis, who rejected the importance placed on natural selection in Darwinism in favour of her own symbiotic evolutionary theory (and of the Gaia Hypothesis), which was clearly wrong. Margulis is a rather bizarre figure because she was right about one thing, the endosymbiotic origins of the mitochondria, but otherwise she was a life long fringe scientist with bizarre ideas. Despite this, it is disingenuous to quote Margulis suggesting she favoured creationism, because she was adamantly not a creationists. She believed in evolution, just in her own weird personal version of it.

[YesNo]

Based on what I am reading, I take it Stephen C. Meyer is a creationist. That means he must believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old. If that is the case, that's fine. There are books in the public library I use by scientists claiming the big bang didn't happen. That's fine, too. It is always useful to have viewpoints that challenge the current models.

This thread, however, is about Craig's use of the Kalam argument based on scientifically verified data, confirmed within the past 10 years, that the universe is 13.72 billion years old, plus or minus 1%, and that the big bang actually occurred. With Craig relying on this data, he is not a creationist, although he is a Christian.

One thing I've noticed about creationists is that they seem to be waiting for both theistic and atheistic scientists to come to their senses and ultimately confirm their worldview. Until those scientists do, the creationists use a "God of the gaps" argument to justify their position.

One thing I've noticed about atheists is that they now have to do the same thing. They have to wait until those same theistic and atheistic scientists come to their senses and confirm their worldview. Until those scientists do, these atheists, like Krauss and Dawkins, use a "Nothing of the gaps" argument to get the results they want.

It is amusing that atheists and creationists are in the same position today when it comes to science.

[mal4mac]

... we have no photographs of God, nor do we have photographs of logical absolutes, love or electrons, yet we all still believe in these things.

Why does logic have to be absolute? We observe it to work, in a pragmatic sense, in our universe, that's good enough for me. So I 'believe' in logic, in the sense that 'I think it's useful'.

If you are viewing love as 'a subjective feeling', then, OK, I don't expect pictures of that. So this is something that, I agree, that we can believe in but, also something we have no pictures. (We might see brain scans light up when we have the feeling, but that isn't a picture of the subjective feeling...)

We have seen bubble chamber tracks of electrons, that's 'good enough' for me as photographic evidence -- if you combine it with all the other theoretical & experimental evidence. Has God shown up in a bubble chamber?

Your insistence that all claims must be subjected to empirical verification is an old and entirely refuted criterion of logical positivism.

I didn't, and wouldn't, insist on that, see my comment above on love. I like Bryan Magee's example 'Mozart is a better composer than Ted Heath' as an another example that refutes the strong version of logical positivism - I would certainly agree with this statement but there is no empirical evidence.

The problem with most New Atheists is that they are unwittingly reviving a dead and completely refuted worldview.

I've read Dawkins, and a few others, and never had this impression.

...the requirement of empirical verification for all claims is less reliable than theistic philosophy, and this is something both atheistic and theistic philosophers agree on.

What New Atheists has claimed that you must have empirical verification for all claims? I've never read a claim like this from Dawkins, or any other New Atheist of similar intellectual stature.

God, viewed as the cause the Big bang, is something I might reasonably expect to have some empirical evidence of, as the Big Bang is in the empirical domain.

[YesNo]

And then a quote mined from Lynn Margulis, who rejected the importance placed on natural selection in Darwinism in favour of her own symbiotic evolutionary theory (and of the Gaia Hypothesis), which was clearly wrong. Margulis is a rather bizarre figure because she was right about one thing, the endosymbiotic origins of the mitochondria, but otherwise she was a life long fringe scientist with bizarre ideas. Despite this, it is disingenuous to quote Margulis suggesting she favoured creationism, because she was adamantly not a creationists. She believed in evolution, just in her own weird personal version of it.

Thanks for pointing out Lynn Margulis, KillCarneyKlans and OrphanPip.

I found a book by her and Dorion Sagan called Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, published in 2002 in the library. The cover says this about her:

Lynn Margulis, Distinguished University Processor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Russian Academy of Natural Science. She received a National Medal of Science from President Clinton in 2000.

Niles Eldredge is quoted on the jacket as saying the following about the book:

Novel, mind-spinning ideas abound throughout this book. If Acquiring Genomes doesn't stimulate new directions of thought in evolutionary biology, I can't imagine what will.

Eldredge came up with the idea of punctuated equilibrium with Stephen Jay Gould and appears, from his Why We Do It: Rethinking Sex and the Selfish Gene, to be opposed to Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene.

I'm looking forward to reading it.

[stuntpickle]

Why does logic have to be absolute?

Apparently, you don't understand what I mean when I say "logical absolutes", as they are something both sides generally accept. The following link should help you sort it out:

http://logical-critical-thinking.com...cal-absolutes/

If you are viewing love as 'a subjective feeling', then, OK, I don't expect pictures of that. So this is something that, I agree, that we can believe in but, also something we have no pictures. (We might see brain scans light up when we have the feeling, but that isn't a picture of the subjective feeling...)

Sigh... God, like the number two, isn't a physical phenomenon, so presuming one can take a picture of Him is absurd. Moreover, when someone makes a statement in a rational discussion, they make the assertion that the statement is true IN PRINCIPLE, which is to say in all cases. So to ask for a picture of God is to imply that criteria is somehow standard or reasonable in all cases, and this is obviously untrue. Thus the examples. Your "explanation" of how these examples are different doesn't matter.

I didn't, and wouldn't, insist on that, see my comment above on love.

Of course, you wouldn't because you're prejudiced and seem not to understand how rational discussions are generally conducted.

I've read Dawkins, and a few others, and never had this impression. What New Atheists has claimed that you must have empirical verification for all claims? I've never read a claim like this from Dawkins, or any other New Atheist of similar intellectual stature.

You should watch Dawkins's debate with George Coyne in which Dawkins flatly admits to a scientistic (NOT scientific) worldview. Of course, this was so embarrassing for Dawkins that the interview never aired, but it is still available on the internet.

God, viewed as the cause the Big bang, is something I might reasonably expect to have some empirical evidence of, as the Big Bang is in the empirical domain.

That's because you either don't understand or are unwilling to understand what people mean when they say "God", Who is, by definition, immaterial, which makes empirical testing impossible. Any cause outside the universe, whether God or otherwise, is necessarily unable to adhere to empirical criteria, and science is suggesting precisely extra-material causation. That's the whole point: science has found its own constraints. So asking to extend empiricism or science beyond their own stated constraints is a little absurd.

[Darcy88]

At some level nothing matters. Most people aren't going to be convinced by any proof that violates their beliefs anyway, whether atheist or theist. One can always posit a "God of the gaps" or a "Nothing of the gaps" to get out of being backed into a logical corner. Or, more easily, one can ignore the arguments.

Craig's use of the Kalam argument along with Krauss's A Universe from Nothing are parts of a culture war going on now between Christians (and indirectly all religious people) and atheists such as Krauss and Dawkins. Dawkins wrote the concluding chapter to Krauss's book and he wanted Hitchens to write an introduction, but Hitchens was dying at the time. Krauss's text is not so much about science as it is an anti-religious polemic.

So whether the issue ultimately matters or not, it will be interesting to many people.

The core problem is can atheism explain our universe, including space and time, without recourse to some cause beyond space and time? That our universe had a beginning is now part of the standard model of cosmology. The Kalam argument, which is quite simple and which Craig is popularizing with many of the debates he engages in, insists it cannot. Krauss seems to be arguing that we should just accept stuff coming out of nothing without a cause because he can't find one that suits his beliefs.

Tell me who started this "culture war." The atheists? The christians? How is science any less valid than religion?

And if scientists need something beyond space and time to account for the universe's creation then that thing is called a force. Its your choice if you want to call it god, you have the right to call it whatever you want. But when you hold as a conviction a theistic view of things, when you try to make faith into fact, you are essentially becoming a scientist.

Craig is a scientist. He's just not as good a one as Hawking is. Literalism of all sorts amounts to the death of imagination and soul. I have faith but proving it amounts to beating it with a broomstick.

Literalist interpretations of religious books are wrong and harmful and anti-faith.

[stuntpickle]

And if scientists need something beyond space and time to account for the universe's creation then that thing is called a force. Its your choice if you want to call it god, you have the right to call it whatever you want. But when you hold as a conviction a theistic view of things, when you try to make faith into fact, you are essentially becoming a scientist.

This is not only wrong, but silly too. The Kalam (and that's what we're talking about, right?) suggests an extra-spatial, extra-temporal, supremely powerful, personal cause for the universe. To suggest that calling this cause "God" is simply some arbitrary rationalization of theists is, frankly, hilarious. First, personhood, immateriality and timelessness have never been strictly associated with "force", but they have, in fact, been strictly associated with "God". In fact, that's the entire definition of the Western monotheistic God.

And, in your last statement, you reveal your scientistic (not scientific) stripes. Never in the entire history of all humanity has science been the sole arbiter of fact. That's why we have departments of math, history and philosophy on every university campus, rather than one monolithic college of science. The only people who don't understand this are people adhering to a faulty worldview of scientism. Science has not been, is not now and will never be a sufficient arbiter of truth. To state a truth does not make one a scientist, nor has it ever.

Craig is a scientist. He's just not as good a one as Hawking is. Literalism of all sorts amounts to the death of imagination and soul. I have faith but proving it amounts to beating it with a broomstick.

Literalist interpretations of religious books are wrong and harmful and anti-faith.

Again, this is patently false and entirely ridiculous. Craig is a philosopher, and there's absolutely no doubt about this. It is obviously true that Hawking is a better scientist than Craig, but it is also obviously true that Craig knows more about science than Hawking knows about philosophy. Yet Hawking understands the implications of his work, and that's why he's been so feverishly trying to find alternatives. The problem is that Craig is capable of drawing reasonable conclusions from scientific data, and most of the atheistic participants in this public debate aren't capable of discerning what constitutes a reasonable conclusion within the confines of the discussion. That is to say scientists are incredibly good at collecting data and drawing conclusions about it within the scope of their own field, but they are rank amateurs when it comes to drawing extra-scientific conclusions, which, unfortunately, happens all the time.

[Darcy88]

This is not only wrong, but silly too. The Kalam (and that's what we're talking about, right?) suggests an extra-spatial, extra-temporal, supremely powerful, personal cause for the universe. To suggest that calling this cause "God" is simply some arbitrary rationalization of theists is, frankly, hilarious. First, personhood, immateriality and timelessness have never been strictly associated with "force", but they have, in fact, been strictly associated with "God". In fact, that's the entire definition of the Western monotheistic God.

And, in your last statement, you reveal your scientistic (not scientific) stripes. Never in the entire history of all humanity has science been the sole arbiter of fact. That's why we have departments of math, history and philosophy on every university campus, rather than one monolithic college of science. The only people who don't understand this are people adhering to a faulty worldview of scientism. Science has not been, is not now and will never be a sufficient arbiter of truth. To state a truth does not make one a scientist, nor has it ever.




Again, this is patently false and entirely ridiculous. Craig is a philosopher, and there's absolutely no doubt about this. It is obviously true that Hawking is a better scientist than Craig, but it is also obviously true that Craig knows more about science than Hawking knows about philosophy. Yet Hawking understands the implications of his work, and that's why he's been so feverishly trying to find alternatives. The problem is that Craig is capable of drawing reasonable conclusions from scientific data, and most of the atheistic participants in this public debate aren't capable of discerning what constitutes a reasonable conclusion within the confines of the discussion. That is to say scientists are incredibly good at collecting data and drawing conclusions about it within the scope of their own field, but they are rank amateurs when it comes to drawing extra-scientific conclusions, which, unfortunately, happens all the time.

I won't discuss this with you if you can't speak with decency and respect.

Cheers SP.

[stuntpickle]

I won't discuss this with you if you can't speak with decency and respect.

Cheers SP.

I haven't treated you otherwise. To say your point is silly isn't the same as saying you, yourself, are. To suggest that that Craig is a scientist and science is the arbiter of fact is as bizarre as to suggest that Craig is a baker and baking is the arbiter of fact.

This has been my experience in discussing this issue with atheists. I never get to have the actual discussion, but, instead, have to spend my time informing my interlocutor why, for instance, uncertain premises do not infringe upon an argument's validity, or why science isn't the arbiter of fact, or why metaphysics isn't tantamount to voodoo, or why this or that absurd assertion isn't admissible in any reasonable discussion--all while the atheist pretends that he has some special claim on truth, and theists are dolts who believe in fables. Of course, all my efforts are generally for naught since my interlocutor will then take his toys home under the pretense that I'm not respecting him.

Always, the atheists assume the mantle of reason and then immediately start to tell theists why it isn't reliable. If science is the arbiter of all facts, truths and things in general, then this discussion is impossible since it is not a scientific experiment.

Sometimes saying something is silly isn't an insult, but an accurate description.

[KillCarneyKlans]

Ok Pip, this is the last song and dance, I really don't wanna debate the politics of this argument as I said before ... Anyways, this is my last salvo ... I hope we can have more meaningful discussions in the future ... sometime

So, in summary:
Signature in the Cell was published by a popular press for mass market and not by an academic publisher, and this publisher sings the praise of its product in its descriptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
In March, 2002, Meyer announced a "teach the controversy" strategy, which alleges that the theory of evolution is controversial within scientific circles, following a presentation to the Ohio State Board of Education. The presentation included submission of an annotated bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets of what was referred to as "Darwinian evolution". In response to this claim the National Center for Science Education, an organisation that works in collaboration with National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the National Science Teachers Association that support the teaching of evolution in public schools, contacted the authors of the papers listed and twenty-six scientists, representing thirty-four of the papers, responded. None of the authors considered that their research provided evidence against evolution.

Sounds like to me, evolutionists or darwinists if you prefer ... aren't to big on publishing material that ... "raise significant challenges to key tenets" ... that being "something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin" ... The Ohio State Board of Education, 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles, the National Center for Science Education and multiple other sub-organizations closely tied to education contacted 26 of the scientific authors, representing 34 of the 44 scientific peer-reviewed papers, which were needed to constitute the thesis ... none of which "considered that their research provided evidence against evolution." ... But more than that actually confirms through those scientific methods that previous presumptions of evolutionary theory in the light of the "Biological Abacus" for the lack of a better word are inheritantly wrong and misleading ... this is nothing but a double standard and a scientific ponze scheme ... [but both party's if you wanna call it that are to blame]

It was reviewed favourably in an irrelevant magazine with a highly pretentious name.

So was Global Warming ... the University of East Anglia ... what if I googled say these terms vs Stephen Meyers ... Signature in the Cell ... if it news to evolution.org ... it is to most people then ... The reviewer and posters below in the Spectrum article ... seemed very informed of the subject ... the Reviewer here

http://spectrummagazine.org/review/2...signature-cell
The book itself is almost 600 pages in length, the last 100 contain footnotes, bibliography and index. [Sounds like a reference book to me ?!?] In the 150 years since 1859 the dominant scientific establishment has, it is fair to say, fully embraced the “materialistic naturalism” model generally and specifically as applied to origins. Signature in the Cell proposes to revisit the origins controversy particularly in light of the discovery over 50 years ago of DNA and the enormous advances in our knowledge of cellular biology and information theory since then ... While the book chronicles and explains a host of issues, I was fascinated by the discussion of random chance and the assembly of the minimum amount of proteins necessary for “simple” life to function ... If Meyer stopped here and simply asserted that “since undirected, random chance cannot produce even one protein (given the entire resources of the universe) then life must be attributable to an Intelligent Designer,” he would be guilty of something that he strenuously denies: relying on a “God of the gaps” argument. Meyer does not do this. Instead, he explains “abductive reasoning” which enables one to come up with the “best explanation” ... In short, “God of the gaps” argues from ignorance whereas “Inference to the Best Explanation” argues from knowledge.

Dawkins refused to debate Meyer because he's a sham. And somehow we're to take this as a poor reflection on Dawkins.

Well, whether Dawkin's or Meyer's for that matter is a sham or in my words a ponze schemer ... wouldn't it be great if the some world's most pre-eminent scientists and debaters each clash for there respective magisterium, by whom they were groomed to become? I never seen Dawkins backed down so easily?

http://spectrummagazine.org/review/2...signature-cell
The problem with the origin of life is that there is currently no adequate non-intelligent cause identified, according to Meyer. So while I agree it is inadequate to make the two-step premise/conclusion I set forth, nevertheless that seems to be pretty much exactly what someone like Dawkins does.

And then a quote mined from Lynn Margulis, who rejected the importance placed on natural selection in Darwinism in favour of her own symbiotic evolutionary theory (and of the Gaia Hypothesis), which was clearly wrong. Margulis is a rather bizarre figure because she was right about one thing, the endosymbiotic origins of the mitochondria, but otherwise she was a life long fringe scientist with bizarre ideas. Despite this, it is disingenuous to quote Margulis suggesting she favoured creationism, because she was adamantly not a creationists. She believed in evolution, just in her own weird personal version of it.

Well, I'll give you this one ... I'm glad your listening ... I got this one from a fellow poster at unexplaned-mysteries.com ... I always thought it is rather amusing, don't you think? No Harm Intended ... This argument seems to raise more questions ... than it answers ... so I'm seeing this as a good thing

[KillCarneyKlans]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/no...ess/#ProMulNot
What does a man love more than life?
Hate more than death or mortal strife?
That which contented men desire,
The poor have, the rich require,
The miser spends, the spendthrift saves,
And all men carry to their graves?
(Leemings, 1953, 201)

The answer, Nothing, can only be seen through a kaleidoscope of equivocations. Some of the attempts to answer ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ equivocate or lapse into meaninglessness. The comedic effect of such errors is magnified by the fundamentality of the question. Error here comes off as pretentious error. Those who ask the question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ commonly get confused. But the question itself appears to survive tests for being merely a verbal confusion.

NOVA The Elegant Universe Pt 2
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics...se-string.html

BRIAN GREENE: However it was discovered, Euler's equation, which miraculously explained the strong force, took on a life of its own. This was the [re-] birth of string theory. Passed from colleague to colleague, Euler's equation ended up on the chalkboard in front of a young American physicist, Leonard Susskind.

LEONARD SUSSKIND: To this day I remember the formula. The formula was... and I looked at it, and I said, "This is so simple even I can figure out what this is."

BRIAN GREENE: Susskind retreated to his attic to investigate. He understood that this ancient formula described the strong force mathematically, but beneath the abstract symbols he had caught a glimpse of something new.

LEONARD SUSSKIND: And I fiddled with it, I monkeyed with it. I sat in my attic, I think for two months on and off. But the first thing I could see in it, it was describing some kind of particles which had internal structure which could vibrate, which could do things, which wasn't just a point particle. And I began to realize that what was being described here was a string, an elastic string, like a rubber band, or like a rubber band cut in half. And this rubber band could not only stretch and contract, but wiggle. And marvel of marvels, it exactly agreed with this formula.

BRIAN GREENE: Veneziano was amazed to discover that Euler's equations, long thought to be nothing more than a mathematical curiosity, seemed to describe the strong force. He quickly published a paper and was famous ever after for this "accidental" discovery.

GABRIELE VENEZIANO (CERN): I see occasionally, written in books, that, uh, that this model was invented by chance or was, uh, found in the math book, and, uh, this makes me feel pretty bad. What is true is that the function was the outcome of a long year of work, and we accidentally discovered string theory.

BRIAN GREENE: However it was discovered, Euler's equation, which miraculously explained the strong force, took on a life of its own. This was the birth of string theory. Passed from colleague to colleague, Euler's equation ended up on the chalkboard in front of a young American physicist, Leonard Susskind.

LEONARD SUSSKIND: To this day I remember the formula. The formula was... and I looked at it, and I said, "This is so simple even I can figure out what this is."

http://www.craigdemo.co.uk/geneticpatterns.htm
One of the things I discovered early on was the occurrence of the ratio 1: 1.2732, the ratio for a squared circle. This led Vernon to the discovery of pi in Genesis 1. This, in turn, led Peter Bluer to the discovery of e {Euler's Formula] in Genesis 1 also.

http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.je...rst_Princs.htm
In mathematics, the sciences, and engineering, the two most widely known (and used) dimensionless constants are p (pi) and e. Both are transcendental numbers, ie neither can be defined exactly by the ratio of two integers, nor by any algebraic process.

The first (p) is most famously involved in the mensuration of circle and sphere, and has been known from ancient times. Its value is 3.141592654... - commonly approximated by the simple fraction [of 22 Hebrew letters divided by 7 days of creation] 22/7, or 3.142857... (error: + 0.04%). Leibniz discovered that it was possible to express this number precisely as an infinite alternating series involving the reciprocals of the odd integers, thus:

The second (e) is of a more recent vintage (18th century). Known also as 'Euler's number', it occurs naturally in any situation where a quantity increases at a rate proportional to its value, such as a bank account producing interest, or a population increasing as its members reproduce.

The application of a simple numerical procedure to the Hebrew letters and words of the Bible's first verse (Gen.1:1) generates an approximation of p, correct to 5 significant figures (error: 0.0012%).

The application of the identical procedure to the first verse of the Gospel of John (which has much in common with Gen.1:1) generates an approximation of e, also correct to 5 significant figures (error: 0.0011%).

It would be extremely unreasonable to suppose that these events are fortuitous accidents; rather, highly likely that they are features of purposeful design.

PATTERN & PURPOSE - An augmented review of Stan Tenen's web page
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Letr_Sym.htm

"Symmetry Woven into the First Verse of the Hebrew Text of Genesis"
Mr. Tenen's essay, "Damning by Faint Praise", can be found at http://www.meru.org/DamnbyFaintPraise.html.

It has already been observed that the Ulam spiral arrangement of the letters of Genesis 1:1 takes place within an 11 x 11 array of unit squares. Using this structure as a backcloth, it is now possible to develop some apposite symmetrical patterns ... which represent 37

REALITY 101: THE BOOK GENESIS - Hidden Secret (The Golden Mean Spiral)
http://reality101blog.blogspot.com/2...iljournal.html

We now know thanks to Stan Tenens work into the origin and nature of the Hebrew alphabet and Daniel Winter’s additional research into the significance of the Golden Mean spiral, that the sacred Hebrew alphabet was designed with a clear intention to convey the very essence of creation and to teach later generations what the Be-resjiet, the principle of creation really is. Independently [both] Stan Tenen and Daniel Winter noticed that the characters of the Hebrew alphabet are projections of a special form on the faces of a tetrahedron seen from different angles! However it was Daniel Winter who pointed out that this special form is actually the Golden Mean or Phi spiral. The Phi spiral describes the surface of the torus, the basic element of matter. Now if we put the Phi spiral inside a tetrahedron and then slowly revolve it around a pivot axis, and shine a light from behind the Phi spiral, all of the Hebrew characters will show up as the shadows on the inside face of the tetrahedron. Hence, the characters of the Hebrew alphabet are the projections of a Golden Mean spiral.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedean_spiral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulam_spiral

The Ulam spiral, or prime spiral (in other languages also called the Ulam Cloth) is a simple method of visualizing the prime numbers that reveals the apparent tendency of certain quadratic polynomials to generate unusually large numbers of primes. It was discovered by the mathematician Stanislaw Ulam in 1963 ... According to Ed Pegg, Jr., the herpetologist Laurence M. Klauber proposed the use of a prime number spiral in finding prime-rich quadratic polynomials in 1932, more than thirty years prior to Ulam's discovery.

All prime numbers, except for the number 2, are odd numbers. Since in the Ulam spiral adjacent diagonals are alternatively odd and even numbers, it is no surprise that all prime numbers lie in alternate diagonals of the Ulam spiral. What is startling is the tendency of prime numbers to lie on some diagonals more than others. Robert Sacks devised a variant of the Ulam spiral in 1994. In the Sacks spiral the non-negative integers are plotted on an Archimedean spiral rather than the square spiral used by Ulam. (In the Ulam spiral, two squares occur in each rotation.) Euler's prime-generating polynomial, x2-x+41, now appears as a single curve as x takes the values 0, 1, 2 ...

Secrets of the Hebrew Letters
http://www.redicecreations.com/speci...ewletters.html

Though the realization was an instantaneous 'Aha!', it took him years to mathematically perfect the shape of the hand model, which incorporates fourteen explicit features representing aspects of western philosophies and is based on a spiral used in art throughout the ancient world, most notably under the Egyptian 'Eye of Horus.' "It is not the Golden Spiral," he says. "The golden spiral is a modern invention that circles itself endlessly in its own image-philosophically, it denotes narcissism. True sacred geometry appears like the golden spiral for quite a while and then it straightens out." "Like the Egyptian spiral," he continues, "ours has a tightly coiled part which expands into all there is-the coiled part represents the human head and brain and the straight part, the spine ... if you overlay the spiral over a human embryo at 56 days, they match perfectly."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Horus
In the Ancient Egyptian measurement system, the Eye Of Horus defined Old Kingdom number one (1) = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64, by throwing away 1/64 for any rational number. Eye of Horus numbers created six-term rounded-off numbers. The Old Kingdom definition has dropped a seventh term, a remainder 1/64, that was needed to report exact series ... The Egyptian Mathematical Leather Roll, the RMP 2/n table and the Akhmim Wooden Tablet wrote binary quotients and scaled remainders. The metaphorical side of this information linked Old Kingdom fractions 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, and 1/64, to separate parts of the eye.

Ancient Egyptian Religion and Mythology; The Eye of Horus (Eye of Ra)
http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/eye.html

The symbol was divided into six parts, representing the shattering of Horus´ eye into six pieces. Each piece was associated with one of the six senses and a specific fraction ... More complex fractions were created by adding the symbols together. It is interesting to note that if the pieces are added together the total is 63/64 not 1. Some suggest that the remaining 1/64 represents the magic used by Thoth to restore the eye, while others consider that the missing piece represented the fact that perfection was not possible.

http://www.whatabeginning.com/Themes/Part1/BP.htm
http://www.whatabeginning.com/Themes...Teach_Ulam.htm
Themes from Creation's Blueprint - 1: Teach_Ulam

The Ulam spiral is a graphically concise way of representing long sequences of the natural numbers, of highlighting properties that may be held in common, and of detecting patterns of behavior that would otherwise be largely unknown.

http://www.greatdreams.com/grace/146/153quran.html
http://www.greatdreams.com/grace/99/99AAelectrons.html
The Quran's Number 19 -Electrons and Mythologies

Number 19, the number upon which all of the Quran is based, represents two octaves plus the fifth of the third octave of 7 notes.

The use of the torus in my studies is one of modularity ... cyclical in definition of integer solutions solving certain diophantine [allows the variables to be whole numbers negative or positive only] equations. The torus means doubly periodic, which is a two cycle entity. These forms can be represented by the complex values of e (natural log) as: e^(ix)=doubly periodic form.

No, these transcendental constants are embedded and encrypted in the text of the Scriptures ... a priori, before it's discovery ... In the Bio-Info and in the Cosmological Component and crossing each other ... The writers of it ... by science's own admission ... could not have conceived or designed it with their own hand ... or at least without [God's help] ... supernatural invention ... or science is just catching up ... I have tons of more ammo ... but, I need a break ... so until next time ... please don't be mad at me for saying this

[MorpheusSandman]

Sorry if it seems like I abandoned this debate. It's been an interesting one, but I decided to take most of the week off and do zen out to some good music. I'll try to get back to YesNo and StuntPickle asap.

[mal4mac]

God, like the number two, isn't a physical phenomenon...

Physical phenomena can only be explained by other physical phenomena. The Big Bang is a physical phenomenon and, therefore, God must, at least in part, be a physical phenomenon.

You should watch Dawkins's debate with George Coyne in which Dawkins flatly admits to a scientistic (NOT scientific) worldview. Of course, this was so embarrassing for Dawkins that the interview never aired, but it is still available on the internet.

If your conclusions are correct about him being embarrassed about what he said then *so what*. He might have had an off day. If George Coyne said something daft 'off the cuff' I'd let him off, everyone is likely to do that - low blood sugar levels can make everyone irrational. To engage in serious debate you need to refer to serious sources. Can you point to anything in Dawkins published writings to defend your idea that he is an unreconstructed logical positivist?

[mal4mac]

To say your point is silly isn't the same as saying you, yourself, are.

Depends on one's philosophy - if one identifies with one's views and you call one silly then one is likely to draw the conclusion that you are calling one silly, and the thread gets derailed. Proof - it just happened.

Why not just say a view doesn't add up, for you?

This has been my experience in discussing this issue with atheists. I never get to have the actual discussion, but, instead, have to spend my time informing my interlocutor why, for instance, uncertain premises do not infringe upon an argument's validity, or why science isn't the arbiter of fact, or why metaphysics isn't tantamount to voodoo...

Why do you think that we should know that metaphysics isn't voodoo? You have to start with the assumption that you might have to explain everything in a general forum.