Play online chess!

From	Message
coram_deo 20-Aug-21, 19:20	Evidence For God’s Existence I think the evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection is overwhelming and far greater than any evidence for macroevolution (one species turning into another species by blind chance.) But this thread takes a more general view of whether God exists or not. This first video, which is 4:31 minutes long, is entitled, “How a Dice can show that God exists” and is pretty thought provoking. youtu.be
coram_deo 20-Aug-21, 19:43	This second video, entitled “6 Proofs for God’s Existence,” is 8:30 long. youtu.be
coram_deo 20-Aug-21, 19:53	“Where did God come from?” Great answer in just 2 minutes. youtu.be
coram_deo 23-Aug-21, 07:41	The article below is interesting, but I come at the question of whether God exists in a much simpler way: I think if one believes in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ - and there is plenty of evidence for it - God’s existence naturally follows. This article takes a different approach. From gotquestions.org: “The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that causes invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a ‘wish-fulfillment’ factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted. Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak. An argument for the existence of God — something rather than nothing To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: ‘Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?’ This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, ‘In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.’ In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all: 1. Reality is an illusion. 2. Reality is/was self-created. 3. Reality is self-existent (eternal). 4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent. So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, ‘I think, therefore I am.’ Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must ‘be.’ In other words, ‘I think, therefore I am not an illusion.’ Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated. Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of ‘analytically false’ statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as ‘spontaneous generation’ —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, ‘I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.’ Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out. Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads: • Something exists. • Nothing cannot create something. • Therefore, a necessary and eternal ‘something’ exists. Notice that we must go back to an eternal ‘something.’ The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter? To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal. Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated. Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: ‘It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.’ The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements: • Something exists. • You do not get something from nothing. • Therefore a necessary and eternal ‘something’ exists. • The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator. • Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe. • Therefore, an eternal Creator exists. Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, ‘Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God’s existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.’ An argument for the existence of God — knowing the Creator But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised: • He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space). • He must be powerful (exceedingly). • He must be eternal (self-existent). • He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it). • He must be timeless and changeless (He created time). • He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical. • He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality). • He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites. • He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature. • He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being. • He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything. • He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver). • He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given). These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 4:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7). An argument for the existence of God — the flaws of atheism One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—‘no god,’ which is what ‘atheist’ means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, ‘An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.’ For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist. Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice. This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, ‘More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.’ An argument for the existence of God — the conclusion So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: ‘But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God’ (John 1:12-13).” www.gotquestions.org
coram_deo 28-Aug-21, 04:06	Interesting article but kind of long so I’m splitting it up into two posts. “Scientific Evidence for God (Insights and Explanations) There is a story that the emperor Napoleon once asked the scientist Laplace why Laplace’s new book did not mention God. Laplace replied, ‘I had no need of that hypothesis.’ Whether or not Laplace actually said it, his attitude is shared by many scientists today. In 2009, a Pew research study showed that scientists are ten times as likely as the general population to disbelieve in God or even a ‘higher power.’ Significantly the same study showed that there are still many scientists who believe in God (33%) and still others who believe at least in a universal spirit or higher power (18%). That means over 51% of scientists believe in a transcendent being or power. From a scientist’s point of view, what evidence might there be to support belief in God? In this post, we’ll summarize the best, current scientific evidence for God and provide you with plenty of links if you want to dig deeper into the specifics. We’ll also offer a free download of a chapter from Fr. Spitzer's book, The Soul's Upward Yearning. This chapter will answer questions such as ‘Has science disproved the existence of a creator?’ and ‘Can science give any evidence for a transcendent creator?’ First, we need to discuss what kinds of scientific evidence and arguments can apply. When We Say ‘Scientific Evidence for God,’ What Do We Mean Exactly? Generally speaking, a ‘hypothesis’ means a possible explanation for something we observe. In strictly scientific terms, however, a hypothesis also has to be testable. If you can’t run an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis, then as far as scientists are concerned, it’s not a hypothesis. There are, for better or worse, no scientific experiments that prove or disprove the existence of God. Scientific experiments have to be conducted on the natural, physical world around us. God, if he exists, is supernatural and transphysical: not part of the physical world in front of us. If there can’t be a scientific experiment to prove God’s existence, how can there be scientific evidence for God? As it turns out, you can have evidence for something even if you don’t have an experiment for it. For example, imagine someone asks you, ‘Do you believe that I love you?’ You might believe them or you might not. Either way, your belief would not depend on an experiment that had proved that the person loved you. Your belief would depend, however, on your observations of that person, and those observations would serve as evidence on whether or not you should believe that person. In the same way, while science may not be able to design an experiment to prove the existence of God, it can provide numerous observations that point to His existence. In this post, we’ll look at two groups of observations: first, evidence that the universe had a beginning; second, evidence that the universe is fine-tuned. Did the Universe Have a Beginning, and Is That Scientific Evidence for God? To understand this line of evidence, let’s suppose that science indicates the universe had a beginning. How would that be evidence for God? An ancient philosophical principle states that nothing comes from nothing. If the universe had a beginning, then it had to come from something; otherwise it would have come from nothing, which is impossible. Furthermore, if the universe had a beginning, it had to come from something other than itself. Self-evidently, the universe itself couldn't have existed before its own beginning. Something else must have. The universe, remember, is the sum total of all natural, physical things. Thus, the ‘something else’ that existed prior to the universe could not have been a natural, physical thing. If it had been such a thing, it would be part of the universe, not separate from it. Thus, if the universe had a beginning, it had to come from a supernatural, transphysical being. Consequently, if science indicates that the universe had a beginning, then that is powerful evidence for a supernatural, transphysical being that created the universe. In other words, that is powerful evidence for God. But does science in fact indicate that the universe had a beginning? The Standard Model states that the observable universe suddenly expanded from a small singularity around 13.8 billion years ago—an event known as ‘The Big Bang.’ But there’s little more than speculation about what kind of physical existence there might have been before the Big Bang. Despite the limit that the Big Bang places on our knowledge, science is able to provide two strong arguments why physical existence had to have a beginning. The first is called the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof, and the second is evidence from entropy. Scientific Evidence for a Beginning: the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof To understand the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth (BVG) proof, we need to start with the Hubble-Lemaitre Law. This law states that galaxies are moving away from Earth (our observation point) at speeds which are proportional to their distance. The further away they are from us, the faster we observe them moving away. The standard scientific explanation for this is that space is expanding. Consequently, the more space there is between us and another galaxy, the more expansion there will be. Hence, from our perspective, the velocities of the galaxies grow greater and greater over time. Now, imagine that you could hop in a spaceship and head toward one of these other galaxies at 100,000 mph. Since the galaxy is moving away from you, your velocity relative to that galaxy will be lower than 100,000 mph. If the galaxy is moving away at 20,000 mph, for example, then your velocity relative to it will be 80,000 mph. Bearing that point in mind, we come to the beginning of the BVG proof. Since galaxies are moving away from us at a faster and faster speed over time, the relative velocities of objects moving toward them would slow down over time. Thus, the relative velocities of such objects must have been faster in the past. At some finite point in the past, relative velocities would have reached the speed of light. Scientists generally agree that the speed of light is the maximum possible speed. Thus, this point would have to mark the beginning of time and the universe as we know it. Even if it turns out that there is a velocity greater than the speed of light, that will not undermine the theory—it only states that there is a ‘maximum velocity.’ Suppose, however, that a higher velocity than the speed of light were discovered in our universe. The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth proof would not be undermined. For the BVG proof it does not matter what the highest velocity is, but only that there must be a maximum velocity (whatever it may be). As long as there was a maximum velocity, the past velocities would eventually reach it. What's more, there must always be a maximum possible velocity in any universe or multiverse. To understand why, imagine that physical energy could have an infinite velocity. If its velocity were infinite, it would be everywhere at once. This would create a problem of multiple manifestations of energy and a series of intrinsic contradictions. Thus, there must be a beginning of every universe or multiverse which has an average rate of expansion greater than zero—such as our universe, which has been expanding ever since the Big Bang. Scientific Evidence for a Beginning: Entropy A second line of scientific evidence for a beginning comes from entropy. To understand this evidence, understand that physical systems tend to move from disequilibrium to equilibrium. For example, there’s a difference in temperature between an ice cube and a glass of water. When you put the ice cube in the glass of water, it melts and cools the water. The physical system ends up with the same amount of energy, but more evenly distributed, i.e., in equilibrium. Now, whenever a physical system’s energy moves, it loses some of its disequilibrium overall. The ice cube can’t melt again; it’s already melted. You can refreeze the water in the glass, but to do that requires putting energy into your freezer: the overall system still tends to equilibrium. Over time, then, the universe necessarily moves from disequilibrium to equilibrium. Statistically, it has to. Now, if the universe had always existed, then it would today be at maximum equilibrium; all energy would be evenly spread out throughout the universe. No movement or work, in the scientific sense, would be possible. The universe, however, is not in such a state; therefore it cannot always have existed. And since the universe exists now but didn’t always exist, it must have had a beginning. These two pieces of scientific evidence—the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth proof and the evidence from entropy—make it clear that the universe had a beginning. Taken together with the principle that ‘nothing comes from nothing,’ they are strong evidence that the universe originated from a supernatural, transphysical being separate from it. In other words, they are strong scientific evidence for God.” blog.magiscenter.com (End of Part 1)
coram_deo 29-Aug-21, 09:42	Conclusion of “Scientific Evidence for God (Insights and Explanations)” From magiscenter.com: “Scientific Evidence for Fine-tuning: Further Evidence for God In order for any complex life form to arise in a universe, certain conditions are necessary. When scientists examine these conditions, they agree that they are exceedingly improbable. Since these conditions are extremely improbable, scientists are left with two possible explanations. The first explanation is supernatural design. The second explanation is that our universe is one of unthinkably many. Conditions within these universes would need to vary randomly. If there were enough of them, then it would be likely for a universe such as ours to exist. Before diving into which explanation is more likely, we should take a closer look at some of the conditions which make our universe so improbable. What Fine-tuning Examples Might Be Evidence for God? You can follow this link for a more in-depth explanation of different fine-tuning examples, but the following is a summary of the most important examples. In order for life to develop, the universe needs to start with very low entropy. Mathematical Physicist Roger Penrose calculated that the odds of our universe starting with such low entropy purely by chance were 1 out of 10^10^23 (see the video below for more on this). In order for life to develop, it needs habitable planets. Physicist Paul Davies has determined, however, that if the gravitational constant or the weak force constant were different by 1 in 10^50, the universe would either have expanded or collapsed, catastrophically. Galaxies would not have formed, let alone stars or habitable planets. Similarly slight differences in the nuclear force constant would either cause there to be no hydrogen, or only hydrogen. Either way, complex life would not have been able to develop. Slight changes in either the gravitational constant or the fine structure constant would have resulted in all stars being either red dwarfs or blue giants. Neither kind of star is suitable for life. Is This Scientific Evidence for God or for the Multiverse? We’ve looked at two lines of scientific evidence for God. One indicates the universe had a beginning. The other indicates that the universe is fine-tuned. We’ve suggested that both these sets of evidence indicate the existence of a supernatural, transphysical creator. But what if they instead were evidence for a multiverse? According to the multiverse explanation, our ‘universe’ is only one of many. Our individual universe may have had a beginning—likely the Big Bang—but the multiverse may be eternally churning out bubble universes for all we know. Therefore, if there are trillions of ‘universes’ within the multiverse, then it is not at all surprising that one so fine-tuned as ours could arise by chance. The multiverse theory is currently the strongest alternative to supernatural design, but it has several weaknesses: The multiverse, and all the other ‘universes’ would by definition be unobservable. Consequently the multiverse is not a scientifically testable idea. No observation you make would prove or disprove the multiverse. The principle known as Ockham’s Razor states that, all things being equal, simple explanations are preferable to complicated ones. The multiverse is a very complicated explanation, requiring trillions of bubble universes—and some sort of system for generating more! Furthermore, should the multiverse exist, it would still require a beginning. The multiverse would have to be inflationary, since it’s supposed to be busily churning out more universes. It also would have to have a finite, maximum possible velocity— otherwise energy could have an infinite velocity and would be everywhere at once. Thus the multiverse would also be subject to the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth proof, and would still require a beginning. Finally, all current theories of the multiverse require very specific conditions in order to work. This places them, once again within the realm of fine-tuning. Thus, multiverse theories, besides being questionable to begin with, don’t suffice to explain away the beginning of reality or the fine-tuning present within it. As such, these theories should not prevent the scientific evidence for God from being accepted. Whether or not reality began at the Big Bang, it still needed to have a beginning. Whether or not there are a multitude of other universes, reality needed to be finely-tuned in order to function as it does. God may not be a scientific hypothesis, but given the current state of science, the evidence certainly suggests that God exists. For more on the beginning of the universe and if science can give evidence for a transcendent creator, download your free chapter from Fr. Spitzer's book, The Soul's Upward Yearning below.” blog.magiscenter.com
coram_deo 05-Sep-21, 10:27	Interesting! Unfortunately, I can’t (obviously) post pictures or gifs on here so you have to go the website to see them. Math was my worst subject in school so some of this goes over my head but I can grasp the concepts. From christianevidence.net God and Mathematics Did you know that math is one of the most compelling proofs of God’s hand in creation? Most of us take it for granted that math works; some assume that mathematics is a mere human invention. However, other than developing different symbols and systems to represent math, man has NEVER created anything in math. Mathematical truths (e.g. ‘‘2 + 3 = 5’’) existed long before man discovered it. For example, 2 + 3 = 5 was as true at the beginning of time as it is today. Indeed, it would be true even if there were never any human beings, even if there were never a universe! Yet, laws of mathematics are conceptual in nature; they have and can have no existence except when they are mentally conceived. So how can a conceptual entity like math exist before any mind is around to think it? The answer is that math isn't the product of a human mind, but rather the product of the mind of God. Since God has always existed and thought, the laws of mathematics are also eternal, existing before people. I must stop and say it's no wonder Romans 1:20 tells us that it is “the things that are made” that reveal the attributes of God (that He exists). Math is also universal, immaterial and invariant because God is himself omnipresent, immaterial, and invariant. Math, Math Everywhere! As if that wasn't enough proof, mathematics is also embedded in the complex framework of ALL life and the entire superstructure of the natural world around us: 1. Fractals. The term "fractal" was first used in 1975 to describe the never-ending, infinitely complex, [often] self-similar, geometric patterns, which were generated from the simple mathematical equation: Z = Z² + C. It is only with the advent of modern computers that it has been possible to explore fractal structures created by mathematical equations, such as the one below: Fractal zoom on a Mandelbrot set Isn't that mindblowing? Just look at the intricacy, complexity (described as 'infinitely complex'), and wondrous beauty hidden within numbers! Only intelligence produces such things. The fact that numbers are merely concepts makes it even more phenomenal, and puzzling for the secularist! As this math professor at Bowdoin College said of fractals, "When you look at the Mandelbrot set and see its chaotically intricate and beautiful design, you can’t help but feel that there is something larger than life going on here–that you are staring right at some unexplainable cosmic mystery." But this is not surprising, a Christian expects to find beauty and order in the universe, not only in the physical universe, but in the abstract realm of mathematics as well. The verse “For by him all things were created” (Colossians 1:16) tells us God created all things. The word all includes everything, even math. Fractal design on a leaf You may also have noticed some familiar shapes in the GIF above, since nature is full of fractals! You can find them in phenomena ranging from the structure of snowflakes, trees, clouds to coastlines and mountain ranges. It seems that some of the most complex, chaotic networks in nature are actually not random, but can be defined by fractals! In fact, fractal geometry can be used to mathematically model creation. Today’s video games and special effects for movies are created using fractal geometry. This is how movies became more “realistic” over the past few decades (see the realistic mountain scene pictured on the right). Isn't it remarkable that the reality of these screen-worlds is possible only because they successfully mimic God’s creation? And still, when compared with the actual creation, they are ridiculously simple! 2. The Golden ratio and Fibonacci series. When we take any two successive (one after the other) Fibonacci Numbers (0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, ... etc), their ratio is very close to the Golden Ratio 1.618 … This ratio (and numbers in the Fibonacci sequence) appears all over the natural world. You can find them in phenomena ranging from the shell of the chambered nautilus to hurricanes and spiral galaxies. See: The Golden Ratio: Amazing Proof of God The Fibonacci spiral in Nature 3. Even the laws of nature follow mathematical rules. As scientists record what they observe, most often they are not just using words and paragraphs. The laws of nature can be documented with numbers. They can be measured and computed in the language of mathematics. Galileo, one of the founders of modern science, was right when he said: “The Universe is written in the language of mathematics” Conclusion The very existence of math is a miracle, let alone the correspondence of conceptual mathematical laws to material things! There can only be one conclusion: the correspondence exists because nature, mathematics and the human mind have one supreme link — they are all the created products of God, the Master Designer. www.christianevidence.net
coram_deo 05-Sep-21, 13:58	More math… I don’t know math or Hebrew well enough to verify this article but I have no reason to doubt it’s true. And it’s pretty amazing (make that very amazing.) I can’t reproduce tables and charts on here but will include a link at the bottom of this article for those interested in seeing them. From christianevidence.net Genesis 1:1 - Evidence For God “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1) You may notice that there are some numbers that show up again and again in the Bible. The number seven, for instance, is found throughout the Bible and is widely recognized... The Sabbath on the 7th day; the 7 years of plenty and the 7 years of famine in Egypt; the 7 priests and 7 trumpets marching around Jericho... etc. These numbers are not in the Bible haphazardly or by chance. Unlike English, or other modern languages, each letter in the Hebrew and Greek alphabets has a standard and fixed number or numeric value attached to it (e.g. The first 10 letters have the values 1-10. The next 9 letters are valued 20, 30, ... 100). Not only letters, but also words and complete sentences have numerical values when these numbers are added together. Hebrew Alphabet Table with Numerics It appears the numbers that show up again and again in the Bible are all intertwined with the numerical values themselves (see here). This is even more remarkable considering the Hebrews began using numerical values after the Old Testament was written! So when God inspired the writers of the Scriptures, He led them to include mathematical patterns but had other men discover them at a later time... Curiously, the Hebrew word for a sign is אות (e.g. Gen 1:14), and the Hebrew word for a letter of the alphabet is אות – the same word as that for a sign! Is each letter of the Hebrew alphabet, in itself, a sign that points to Jesus? I believe so... "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5:39) Genesis 1:1 Throughout the Bible, in both Old and New Testaments, the numbers 3, 7, 37 and 73 show up frequently in the underlying numeric values. Both seven and three are numbers of perfection, or completion, picturing God's divine perfection and perfect order (though the number three, to a lesser degree than seven). Many believe that 37 is God's number because, in theomatics, 37 appears to be the base number on which all references to Jesus (God-the-Son) are structured! For instance, the Greek numerical value of the name JESUS is 888 (37 x 3 x 8), CHRIST is 1480 (37 x 8 x 5), JESUS CHRIST is 2368 (37 x 8 x 8), LORD is 999 (37 x 3 x 3 x 3) and GOD is 555 (37 x 3 x 5)... see 185 more examples here. In the very first verse of the Bible (Genesis 1:1), God sets the tone for Bible codes (hidden underlying numeric values) that continue richly throughout both the Old and New Testaments... "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1) In Hebrew: <<see website for illustration>> Note: Hebrew reads from right to left. A listing of the phenomenal features of sevens & threes found in Genesis 1: 7 words in this verse 9 (3 x 3) words when contractions in Hebrew are expanded (similar to the English isn't) 3 words either side of middle word 28 (7 x 4) letters in this verse. This is also the 7th triangular number (aka perfect number). 7 letters in each of the last four words The first 3 words (containing the subject) have 14 (7 x 2) letters The odd numbers among the 14 sums to 42 (7 x 3 x 2) Even numbers among the 14 sums to 98 (7 x 7 x 2) The last four words (containing the object) also have 14 (7 x 2) letters The nouns have 14 letters (7 × 2) The middle word and the one before it are made up of 7 letters The middle word and the one after it are made up of 7 letters Words 2 and 6 are made up of 3 letters Value of first and last letters of all 7 words = 1393 (7 x 199) Value of first and last letters of first and last words = 497 (7 x 71) Value of first and last letters of first half of the verse = 42 (7 x 3 x 2) Value of first and last letters of second half = 91 (7 × 13) Value of shortest word and only verb ברא [created] = 203 (7 x 29) Value of last letters of first and last words = 490 (7 x 7 x 10) Value of first, middle and last letters in verb ברא [created] = 133 (7 x 19) Value of first and last letters of each of the words in between = 896 (7 x 128) The 3 leading nouns in the verse (God, Heaven, Earth) have a numeric value of 777 (7 x 3 x 37) Numerical value of all words = 2701 (37 x 73) = 37th hexagonal number and 73rd triangular number (aka perfect number) Numerical value of all words when contractions in Hebrew are expanded = 2275 (7 × 325) Numerical value of words 1 and 3 = 913 + 86 = 999 (37 x 3 x 3 x 3) Numerical value of words 1, 3 and 6 = 913 + 86 + 407 = 1406 (37 x 38) Numerical value of words 1, 3, and 7 = 913 + 86 + 296 = 1295 (37 x 7 x 5) Numerical value of words 1, 3, 6 and 7 = 913 + 86 + 407 + 296 = 1702 (37 x 46) Numerical value of words 1, 2 and 4 = 913 + 203 + 401 = 1517 (37 x 41) Numerical value of words 1, 2, 4 and 6 = 913 + 203 + 401 + 407 = 1924 (37 x 52) Numerical value of words 1, 2, 4 and 7 = 913 + 203 + 401 + 296 = 1813 (37 x 7 x 7) Numerical value of words 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 = 913 + 203 + 401 + 407 + 296 = 2220 (37 x 3 x 20) Numerical value of words 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 = 913 + 203 + 86 + 401 + 395 + 407 = 2405 (37 x 65) Numerical value of words 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 = 913 + 203 + 86 + 401 + 395 = 1998 (37 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 2) Numerical value of words 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 = 913 + 203 + 86 + 401 + 395 + 296 = 2294 (37 x 62) Numerical value of words 2, 4 and 5 = 203 + 401 + 395 = 999 (37 x 3 x 3 x 3) Numerical value of words 2, 4, 5 and 7 = 203 + 401 + 395 + 296 = 1295 (37 x 7 x 5) Numerical value of words 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 = 203 + 401 + 395 + 407 + 296 = 1702 (37 x 46) Numerical value of words 3 and 5 = 86 + 395 = 481 (37 x 13) Numerical value of words 3, 5 and 6 = 86 + 395 + 407 = 888 (37 x 3 x 8) Numerical value of words 3, 5, 6 and 7 = 86 + 395 + 407 + 296 = 1184 (37 x 32) Numerical value of word 6 = 407 (37 x 11) Numerical value of word 7 = 296 (37 x 8) Numerical value of words 6 and 7 = 407 + 296 = 703 (37 x 19) = 37th triangular number (aka perfect number) Numerical value of all words (2701) added to its reversal, 1027 = 2701 + 1027 = 3773 The creation account from Gen 1:1 to 2:3 has exactly 1813 letters = 37 x 7 x 7 Note: The actual numerics were compiled by Ivan Panin. Believe it or not, this list is not exhaustive of all the features in Gen 1:1! In total, 31 features of the number 7 have been discovered in this first verse and 23 combinations of 37 in the words + the total. That is more than 50 features! The odds of just 31 features of 7, found in Genesis 1:1, is 7 multiplied by itself 30 times (730) or 1 in 22,5 Septillion! This analysis does not not even take into account the 23 combinations of number 37. These through-the-roof statistical probabilities of encoded number patterns could not possibly be there by random chance. And this isn't limited to Genesis. There are literally thousands of such mathematical patterns underlying ALL of the books of the Old and New Testament (see here)! Dr. Ivan Panin, a former agnostic, spent almost fifty years identifying theses structures, and it was his first discovery of this phenomenon that led to his conversion. Panin was so well known as a firm agnostic that when he discarded his agnosticism and accepted the Christian faith, the newspapers carried headlines telling of his conversion! Since God has purposefully designed the number 37 into the names of His Son (“Jesus” and “Christ”), and into His spoken word (the Bible), it shouldn't be too surprising to find similar patterns also in His created life (the genetic code). In a sense, God could have also been describing DNA in John 1:14 by proclaiming - "the Word becomes Flesh" (John 1:14). In 2003, members of the Human Genome Project completed the first reference sequence of the human genome confirming that a 4-letter alphabet organized into three-letter WORDs are responsible for the creation of all flesh... 37 in the Genetic Code Over the past few years, a number of world-class scientists (none of whom are Christians) have reported the discovery of numerical patterns (specifically the number 37) in the universal genetic code... The genetic code, found in all living organisms, is the set of rules which translate DNA into proteins (the building blocks of all living cells) and does not alter as it is passed down through generations. The building blocks of proteins are amino acids and thus, the amino acids represent the very foundational building blocks of life. There are 20 universal amino acids of life that directly code for genes. 4 × 5 AMINO ACID TABLE When we place the 20 amino acids that directly code for genes in a 4 x 5 table and arrange them according to their chemical properties, we get a table where... The sum of the molecular masses of the TOP two rows with EXACTLY half of the central row = 372 + 0.025 The sum of the molecular masses of the BOTTOM two rows with EXACTLY half the central row = 372 - 0.025 The sum of the two INNER columns is EXACTLY 666 x 2 + 0.37 (which can be rewritten as 703 x 2 - 37 x 2 + 0.37) The sum of the two OUTER columns is EXACTLY 703 x 2 - 0.37 (which can be rewritten as 666 x 2 + 37 x 2 - 0.37) The sum of the ODD columns (the 1st and 3rd column) is EXACTLY 703 x 2 - 73 x 2 - 0.73 The sum of the EVEN columns (the 2nd and 4th column) is EXACTLY 666 x 2 + 73 x 2 + 0.73 Notice how the molecular mass of the INNER columns and the OUTER columns are built around the number 37 and 0.37 while the molecular mass of the ODD columns and the EVEN columns are built around the number 73 and 0.73. See: Miloje M. Rakocevic's peer-reviewed paper entitled "A Harmonic Structure Of The Genetic Code", Journal of Theoretical Biology 229 (2004) 221-234 In another paper entitled “The WOW! signal of the terrestrial genetic code”, Vladimir I. Shcherbak and Maxim A. Makukov demonstrate how the nucleons in the human genome are mathematically arranged according to each of the triple repdigits (111 through 999). This is incredible because each of the triple repdigits are intimately related to that flawless number 37… 111 (1 + 1 + 1 = 3 and 3 x 37 = 111) 222 (2 + 2 + 2 = 6 and 2 x 3 x 37 = 222) 333 (3 + 3 + 3 = 9 and 3 x 3 x 37 = 333) 444 (4 + 4 + 4 = 12 and 4 x 3 x 37 = 444) 555 (5 + 5 + 5 = 15 and 5 x 3 x 37 = 555) 666 (6 + 6 + 6 = 18 and 2 x 3 x 3 x 37 = 666) 777 (7 + 7 + 7 = 21 and 3 x 7 x 37 = 777) 888 (8 + 8 + 8 = 24 and 8 x 3 x 37 = 888) 999 (9 + 9 + 9 = 27 and 3 x 3 x 3 x 37 = 999) Additionally, if we sum 111 through 999, we get 4995 (37 x 135). Coincidentally, this is also the total value of the 27 (3 x 3 x 3) Hebrew characters! They draw the conclusion: “Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10–13).” See here for a more in-depth discussion. Finally, in a research paper published in Icarus, scientists have noted that the number 37 crops up another several times... The total molecular mass of the 20 amino acids = 2738 (37 x 74 (37th even number)) The total mass of the molecular core shared by all 20 amino acids is 74 (37 x 2) The sum of the atomic numbers of all the different atoms found in DNA = 37 Of the 20 amino acids, 19 have 73 nucleons (protons and neutrons) Proline is the only amino acid out of the 20 that has 74 (37 x 2) nucleons (also the 37th even number) Mitochondrial DNA contains exactly 37 genes, all of which are essential for normal mitochondrial function There are a total of 28 (7 x 4) codons (3 structural units within DNA) which have a total atomic mass of 1665 (37 x 3 x 3 x 5) and a combined side chain atomic mass of 703 (37 x 19) = 37th triangular number The scientists have a total of nine examples in their research paper published in Icarus, where they state that the chances of the number 37 appearing this many times by random in the genetic code is a staggering one in 10 trillion. Hence, they attribute this phenomenon to aliens! See: www.express.co.uk But this CLEARLY demonstrates that the author of Genesis 1:1 is the SAME author of the human genome - GOD! God has purposefully designed the number 37 into His spoken word (the Bible), into His created life (the genetic code) and into the names of His Son (“Jesus” and “Christ”). Regardless of the significance of these numbers, there is clearly evidence of design in the genetic code, which could not be random chance! The Value of Pi and e Another remarkable proof for God from the numerical values of Genesis 1:1, along with John 1:1, is the discovery of the values of key mathematical constants to a high degree of accuracy... Genesis 1:1 If you examine the numerical values of each of the Hebrew letters, and the numerical value of the words, and apply them to this formula: You get 3.1416 x 1017. The value of π to four decimal places! (Note: This isn't the first time that π has been found hidden in the Hebrew text. In 1st Kings 7:23, when one corrects the letter values for a variation of the spelling, the 46-foot circumference of Solomon’s “molten sea” is specified to an accuracy of better than 15 thousandths of an inch! This accuracy would seem to vastly exceed the precision of their instrumentation! See here) John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This time if you take the numerical value of each of the Greek letters, and the numerical value of the words, and apply them to the same formula: You now get 2.7183 x 1040, the value of e to four decimal places! Through THE EXACT SAME mathematical formula and both accurate to 5 digits! The accuracy of π calculated from the book of Genesis remained unsurpassed for over 1,700 years from the giving of the Torah to Moses in 1313 BC. Similarly, the accuracy of e from the book of John (written in 96 AD) wasn't improved for over 1,600 years. Are these just coincidences? There are 90,000 possible 5 digit numbers from 1.0000 to 9.9999 that could have occurred from the above equations. The chance that the digit sequence 3.1415 occurs by coincidence is therefore 1/90,000. The chance that Euler’s number (e) is calculated from the Gospel of John 1:1 by the same equation to 5 correct digits, is also 1/90,000. The probability that both occur by random chance in these textually related verses is thus 1/90,000 x 1/90,000 = 1/ 8,100,000,000! Skeptics may rightly claim that these mathematical coincidences should apply to any verse from the Bible and then the odds would be much higher. However, it has been known for a long time that Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 are intimately related, both textually and numerically (thereby strengthening the overall case for a mathematical design behind Genesis 1:1/John 1:1)... Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 are the only two verses in the Bible that begin with the phrase "In the beginning" Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 are known as the two great "Creation Verses" of the Bible (the former being the first verse of the Bible and the latter being the first verse of the final Gospel) John 1:1-18 is the prologue to the gospel story, and it introduces Jesus as God's incarnate Word Genesis 1:1-2:3 is the prologue to the whole Bible, and it introduces God as the Creator of the world Numerical value of all words in Genesis 1:1 = 2701 (37 x 73) Numerical value of all words in John 1:1 = 3627 (39 x 93) (also 3 x 3 x 13 x 31!) The Greek numerical value of the “WORD”, appearing 3 times in John 1:1, is 373 The list goes on... see more here. With this complementary link between the two verses, it is difficult to believe that this ‘1 in 8 billion’ coincidence of events is fortuitous. Final Proof One last incredible proof for God, also hidden within the powerful statement in Genesis 1:1, can be found when Genesis 1:1 is read backward. Genesis 1:1 in reverse reads: "Behold My Double, Moses, My Double! Shall I not multiply whom I did multiply?" There are 27 letters used here, that is, 3 x 3 x 3. Note the intricate word positioning: the word "my double" is doubled, and is in turn parallel to the doubling of the word "I multiply," with "Moses," and "whom" in the middle: This opening riddle alone is so complex that to suppose that random chance made it is absurd! And what is more, Genesis 1:1 read backward ALSO forms a word-by-word acrostic that reads: "She harnessed the sun!" Only God could orchestrate something like that! But these are just two examples, the Bible appears to contain, encoded within the simplistic creation story of Genesis, a much more detailed and exhaustive account of how God created, also revealing Jesus Christ as Co-Creator ("My Double"). See here for the meaning of these two riddles and further examples! Just the first seven words of the Hebrew Bible are all it takes to affirm that God is the Creator! Within the exact verse which tells us the most important concept: God creates! That only brushed the surface of the mathematical miracle in the first verse of the Bible, there is much, much more! A mere human author, let alone forty-five authors could not have done all this over two thousand years. I cannot but throw myself in fearful awe and admiration before the Mastermind behind such structures. While it is true that salvation comes by faith alone (Romans 3:22; Hebrews 11:6), our faith is not a blind faith. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Psalm 14:1) www.christianevidence.net

GameKnot: play chess online, chess clubs, online chess puzzles, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess teams, free online chess games database and more.