Atheists CANNOT Explain This Secret Code Seen in Creation

answeringathei... - The Secret Code of Creation by Dr. Jason Lisle.
From the #AnsweringAtheists Easter conference at the Ark Encounter, sponsored by PureFlix.com/an....
Visit Dr. Lisle's ministry at biblicalscienc....
We are streaming more sessions from this conference. See bit.ly/2Uq8pgm for details.

[@renzrose9050]

I have been a scientist for decades. This is why I scoff when people say science disproves religion. When you see these things, you will become a believer in Him, a disbeliever in science, or realize science points to Him.

[@AbiagealMclane]

Amen

[@user-ol6kb1qf6j]

​@@philhart4849u scream reddit mod

[@PhilHart-j9y]

@@user-ol6kb1qf6j "u scream reddit mod" Huh?

[@GameCreatorOfGod]

@@philhart4849 fallacy ? great word, but I see this is the only language you non believers know. I see in your own language. I see you all use words that make you fell smart and try to use them to prove nothing. We all see through it. I read many Atheist's books all full of words to confuse people that sound smart. But all conclude to nothing in any argument. I never once in my life found a Athests Dna book. Ever.

[@PhilHart-j9y]

@@GameCreatorOfGod"I never once in my life found a Athests Dna book. Ever." Would you like mayonnaise with that word salad, Sir?

[@waldoman7]

"There IS NO ATHIEST EXPLANATION for this amazing thing I'm about to show you." They always say before talking about a mixture of stuff a 4th grader could explain and just meaningless gibberish

[@stspy212]

Most of what these types say is quite literally made up on the spot. It's disgusting. Say no to cults, kids.

[@MrAquinas1]

@@stspy212 Yes, say no to the psychologically desperate cult of religion hatred.

[@SatisfyingWhirlpools]

“I’d rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” -Richard Feynman

[@dansmusic5749]

"You said a mouthful, there.", to quote another wise man.

[@dr.bonniewoodruff1906]

I'm 81 years old and I have no questions that need to be answered for I know how the world is going to be and why it has been like it has been. Man is searching for life and Destiny why am I here and what the future hold for me. So life has really many questions and it seems that no answers can be found but I found all the answers and I know where I am bound.

[@philodox7599]

I would much rather have answers that can’t be questioned…. Are you crazy? You would honestly rather believe that god exists rather then KNOW for sure that god unquestionably exists?

[@radrook7584]

@@philodox7599 %Theophobia can impels atheists to do incredible mental gymnastics in order to avoid the obvious, because the obvious terrifies them.

[@radupavel5481]

question away sir. questioning is good. apathy is the enemy.

[@celestejohansen]

Math over the years has caused me to shed many tears, all in frustration! This is the first time math has caused me to shed tears of awe and appreciation for the beauty of God! Thank you for sharing this

[@kathrynnielson5689]

Same!!

[@mistafizz5195]

Believe in Christ all you want but fractals don't prove the existence of god in anyway. I would know I actually studied math. Whoever can discover the existence of god using just math would've won a Nobel prize already.

[@mistafizz5195]

I'm not surprised most of the comments here talk about struggling with math. It makes perfect sense honestly.

[@oncesavedalwayssaved240]

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​@@mistafizz5195The Bible is proof for God. Call it circular reasoning, but the proof of the Bible is the Bible. Also the Word of God is infinite: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" (Romans 11:33) KJV The Bible says you can know 100% you're going to Heaven, if you die today. Don't believe the Bible? The Bible says, faith comes by *hearing* the Word of God being preached. Once you've heard it, you can either accept or reject it, but at least you've heard what the Bible says. It may even make you a stronger atheist 👉Search, The Bible Way to Heaven

[@losningen3665]

"belief in God is associated with lower scores on IQ tests"

[@kristinamullen4066]

As a visual artist, I'm mesmerized by the beauty of these forms.It's interesting that humans have used these forms and shapes throughout time, in their jewelry, pottery, textiles, buildings, etc.They seem to be innate in our imaginations.

[@bettyweir3075]

Thought of hippie-era paisley right away. Also the scarves!

[@knottynate6876]

Human beings are the only thing in the known universe that can see beauty in creation and appeciate it's likeness reflected by us in art. This is proof we are made in God's image I believe.

[@puppiesarepower3682]

Nature ends up using these forms as well, but science rejects the observation as coincidence. Yet they have no issue in stating that 97% of our universe is an unexplained unicorn force called dark energy.

[@logiticalresponse9574]

' the the only

[@logiticalresponse9574]

@@puppiesarepower3682 8

[@robh3007]

The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is at all comprehensible -Albert Einstein When I consider the heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him? The son of man, that you should visit him? Psalm 8:3,4

[@F15CEAGLE]

Maranatha.

[@youaresomeone3413]

The son of man is actually the "sun" of man meaning literally the actual sun.

[@VintageBait]

😭😭🤧

[@ClaytonBigsby93]

@@youaresomeone3413 perhaps you can surmise that interpretation as acknowledgement of it having dual meaning, but your comment neglects the actual meaning of the reference, and you are absolute incorrect in that claim. Son of Man is a direct reference to Christ.

[@thesphider8298]

It isn't comprehensible. Humans just know how to sustain elaborate delusions.

[@KevinKurzsartdisplay]

As a kid, I remember being endlessly interested in fractals and I told my whole family about it. Last year or maybe 2 years earlier, I discovered an app that lets you endlessly explore the Mandelbrot set, it kept me entertained for a long time.

[@BlueBobbin]

thats so cool, what was the app called?

[@christopher9196]

I think it was from the Google banner one week last year!

[@KevinKurzsartdisplay]

The app is called “Retinamandelbrot”, I know I posted this comment earlier but my reply mysteriously disappeared.

[@losningen3665]

"belief in God is associated with lower scores on IQ tests"

[@us3rG]

God is reality, everything else is man made fantasy ​@@losningen3665

[@kilagiltner1572]

Our God is awesome His thoughts and ways are above and beyond ours

[@davezanin1863]

Amen, Praise God

[@dylancooper3984]

You are right!! I’m thankful for Jesus! Thankful for His sacrifice and mercy!

[@Psalm-yg6yi]

There's three things I'm bad at. #1. Math #2. Athletics.

[@onepunch9203]

🤣

[@willbart1236]

As an agnostic, I found this video fascinating. He got one thing wrong in the very beginning though. The Mandelbrot set does not prove biblical creation. It simply does not disprove it.

[@tommy5797]

If one can see the Bible as poetic as well as informative, the meanings change for the Individual.

[@Mr11justin11]

I was an agnostics until I was 38 years old. People that accept Jesus very early on, say in a Church going Christian family, usually aren't grounded very well. Not one writer of the Old testament or new testament ever claimed "the Bible says". I remember rejecting the book of James, fully understanding that he did not preach the gospel of Christ and him crucified. He taught a works orientated belief system. 2 years later I found out that Luther also rejected the book of James for the same reason. Genesis 15:6 States that Abraham was justified by his faith in what God told him concerning having a great multitude of offspring. He had no children at that time and yet the book of James states that Abraham was justified when he did the works of offering up his son. In Acts 21 we see that the judaizers had no problem with James but they had a huge problem with paul. Paul taught me Grace by faith from the book of galatians. I was a little surprised when I found out that Luther was also taught Grace by Faith by Paul but his realization came from reading the book of romans. Same author! same concept. They washed in the blood believer does not need the ten commandments for the same reason that a driver of a Buick doesn't need a buggy whip. At any rate scriptures are plural and anyone who says that James is just balancing out Paul's teaching doesn't have a clue.

[@ryckless1]

He got more than one thing wrong.....

[@jee6213]

@@tommy5797 "If you pretend X means Y, it makes sense" - basically what you said

[@DEMIxGODxSHADOW]

Wait he can't prove or disprove God? I thought some one finally was able to do it, and it was some one who believes the earth is a couple hundred thousand years old and evolution is wrong. Man wrote the Bible, edited it because some words of God were wrong, and God wrote the universe assuming it wasn't some cosmic coincidence.

[@shannonnichols3415]

Makes the term “Cardiologist” more memorable!❤️ I’m terrible at math and my brain shuts down when anyone starts talking about numbers, 😮so I don’t “get it” enough to take a test on it! However, when you showed the illustrations and explained that part with the shapes & repetition, and then the spiral & so on, I do at least get the concept! That’s more than I could have ever imagined before! Thank you for bringing this to us! Many blessings in Jesus name Amen 🙏 🇺🇸✝️

[@chuckdee1189]

Same with me, my mind shutdown once numbers start adding up

[@mistafizz5195]

Believe in Christ all you want but fractals don't prove the existence of god in anyway. I would know I studied math. Whoever can discover the existence of god using just math would've won a Nobel prize already.

[@rickys.6498]

We KNOW how to explain this, atheists know how to explain this. And it's NOT a secret code, nor a code. And there is NO creation, it's not a "creation" of a god. Mandelbrot set is absolutely not a proof of the existence of god, it does not prove the existence of god at all. It has nothing to do with god it's off topic. God don't exist and jesus don't exist, sorry.

[@willarddavis7938]

ur

[@losningen3665]

"belief in God is associated with lower scores on IQ tests"

[@siefoote]

This is literally like the written Word of God. Same Word, but the more you go to it and hear from Him and receive of Him from it, the more you get and the more you get and the more you get. ❤

[@OslerWannabe]

Fractal geometry exists, it's beautiful, and useful. That is what we see in it. But how is it God gets credit? His fingerprints are nowhere on it, because he has no fingers, no hands, no arms, no existence. You BELIEVE he exists. But Belief occurs in the absence of evidence, the absence of proof. 85% of mathematicians are atheists. Benoit Mandelbrot himself was an atheist.

[@tsmith3286]

@@OslerWannabe Where did human life originate? Don't assume I am asking this because I do or don't believe in God, it's just a literal question.

[@richardgregory3684]

@@tsmith3286 Humans evolved from an earlier primate ancestor. Next?

[@lethalsub]

The largest postive real value that lies within the set is 1/4.

[@alexdrake8079]

​@@richardgregory3684 Don't remember my ancestors ever coming from apes because our genetics don't show that we ever reproduced through apes since you can't change the genetic code after conception. So when did the first ape give birth to a human being then? Because reproduction pretty much contradicts this theory you're telling us

[@UberL33TmonkeyMan]

What's cool to me is that this beauty exists in just a 2 dimensional plane. I'd like to see what happens when you add a 3rd plane and see what the set looks like in 3D.

[@sinclairj7492]

I know we can’t imagine it but think of ♾D

[@bobbun9630]

The Mandelbrot set is inherently two dimensional, since the mathematical basis is simply whether or not each point in the complex plane (a two dimensional mathematical structure) converges to a specific value when it's used as a repeated input to a complex valued function. There isn't really a true three dimensional analog to the complex plane, though there is a four dimensional analog (the set of quaternions) and a three dimensional "slice" could be chosen from a similar processing of quaternion space and examined. Yes, if you don't know the math that's probably gibberish--can't really be helped. It's probably worth mentioning that the Mandelbrot set isn't the pretty part most people think of. The set is just the solid black region. All the fancy coloration is just programmers making artistic decisions about how to color the surroundings. Usually it's colored in bands based on how many iterations the program made before deciding that a particular point is not in the Mandelbrot set.

[@jamesarthurreed]

There are videos on this platform that show that the 2D Mandelbrot set (x, y) is a subset of a 3D set (x, y, z) set to z=0, and there are videos that address the fact that imaginary/inverse numbers are the effect of things existing in a 3D or greater space with ties to periodicity (repetition over time). Tying these two concepts together, the images generated are as fascinating as they are beautiful. I won't spam these comments with links, but if you search for these terms, you should find what you're seeking.

[@EelkodeVos]

Look at Veritasium's video. It shows how these sets look like in 3d. Not at all what you'd expect!

[@xAxMxWx]

Yeah! The James guy is right one of those math channels like mathologer or numberphile did a video on exactly what u want to see :)

[@jtmag3638]

I love this. I’ve spent so much time trying to make sense of the world around me and my place in it. I’ve been agnostic, pessimistic, self centered and selfish in my thought process for years. It’s far easier to just have faith. Like a suffocating heavy blanket being lifted from my heart. Faith sets the mind free, free to experience joy in each moment as it passes. Thank you for your content doc. ❤

[@lukeevans9505]

Easier, because it does not require you to think or learn...

[@marius-9333]

@@lukeevans9505 that's called ignorance. Ignorance on your part. Ignorance and arrogance to make such a statement.

[@danielcaulliez6572]

I love what you say

[@GarrettFemister]

@@marius-9333Why don’t you do a KZbin video showing why this is “ignorant or arrogant”? Because people disagree w your view on subjects, doesn’t make them either of those things. I’d love to see the opposite reaction of this video in such detail by a non-believer.

[@rootyroot]

@@marius-9333Ignorance because your emotions say so?

[@DSanto-bk6oq]

This is a great example of “the God of the gaps”…in other words, if we haven’t yet found the answer to a question, it must be God. Over the years, we’ve found answers to many questions that were once thought to be unanswerable. The Bible is a beautiful book, but was written by ancient people a long time ago. I don’t believe it is meant to be taken literally and is certainly not meant to be a science textbook. This is my belief, but I respect your right to believe what you want to as well.

[@Dan-eh9px]

There is an infinite amount of answers. Science attempts to catalogue irreducible complexity and then use human thinking to interpret what those facts mean. I would say the most ignorant people are scientists because they think they have awareness that they do not. At the end of the day it is the human mind and not the scientific method that gives us all of our insights. Data can only serve to trigger the mind it literally means nothing on its own without our interpretation.

[@caviestcaveman8691]

Yep

[@caviestcaveman8691]

They aren't really logical people

[@Bekky-pz2qy]

Nope

[@rossclark9155]

Cha-ching.

[@JK23111]

Here from Redeemed Zoomer's video

[@quietguy-rx6kv]

Here's the thing - it is a graphical representation of a mathematical set. There is nothing in there that requires God. This is another example of somebody who takes God as a given, and takes something that he sees in the world and uses that to justify that belief. Consider for a moment - early in the video he's counting the number of branches in tendrils coming off the buds, pointing to two tendrils near to one another and getting excited about how "the" bud in between them has a number of branches equal to the sum of the two to either side of it. But he plainly ignores other buds that were in between; by his own description, there are an infinite number of those buds. How many other mathematical formulas are out there that result in graphs with high levels of complexity, but which we don't perceive as "beautiful"? Does he get excited by any of those? I saw a comment in the live chat to the effect of "what we know about science can't explain how the universe came into being, so it follows that God did it". That is not the logical conclusion. Just because we don't understand how the Universe came into existence, it is does not automatically follow that God did it; it only means that we don't know. It's generally referred to as the "god of the gaps" fallacy. Consider - two thousand years ago, we didn't know what caused lightning, volcanoes, earthquakes and disease. Setting aside the insurance phrase "act of god", do we invoke God as the cause of those events? Another comment I saw was "you don't have to believe in the Bible for it to be true". But the converse is also true: just because you believe the Bible doesn't make it true.

[@darylldufu9324]

Hi, no disrespect whatsoever but I do have some thoughts about your thoughts. Firstly, with regard to what you said about the buds he might not have said it that way but it was clear at least to me that he was talking size wise in the sense that the two “big”tendrils had their branch numbers adding up to the brand number of the smaller tendril between them and i’m pretty sure that this does go on infinitesimally given the fractal nature of the set. Him possibly not describing it the best or not doesn’t take away the fact that this exists. Secondly, beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder something i’ve come to learn the more i appreciate art. That doesn’t take away from the fact that what he’s saying about the Mendelbrot set is true. Truly there may be people out there who find the graphical representation of this set not beautiful at all and that’s their right however his excitement about this particular set doesn’t negate the complexity of other sets and in fact the complexity of other sets does in fact show that God’s complexity goes far beyond one dimension and can be seen in any way whatsoever. Similar to how beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder God’s complexity is seen in different ways at different levels by different people. I understand that you may not believe in God and to be honest that’s your right regardless of whether i agree or not and i doubt i’m answering or responding to everything you’ve said but just as you said just because we believe in the Bible doesn’t make it true. Similarly just because you don’t Believe in God doesn’t make Him false or a lie. In truth we may not get an answer to this in our life times but if for nothing at all wouldnt it be safer to believe in God and realise at the end of the day there isn’t a God than to live your entire life thinking there isn’t a God only to realise that there is one? CS Lewis said something once about how we shouldn’t see our faith through the lenses of our world but to rather see the world through the lenses of our faith and i believe that’s what science is meant to do. I love math and science and I do believe they show God in the physical world the same way this set shows the underlying complexity in numbers that we may not see but looking at this set with the mindset that God ultimately governs the natural laws of our universe helps you to see the beauty in Him and in this and I understand you may not appreciate that. As for the fallacy you described I see the way by which mountains and volcanoes are formed to yes he acts of God. I did geography to an appreciable level and those collisions and tectonic movements are wonders and acts of grace through which God made/makes those mountains and valleys. Science showing us how something came to be doesn’t mean that God didn’t make said thing through that process. I’m sorry if you feel offended by anything i’ve said but just felt like i needed to say what I believed and felt

[@dibdap2373]

So ultimately it's down to the individual to choose what he believes.

[@Salara2130]

@@darylldufu9324 "Similarly just because you don’t Believe in God doesn’t make Him false or a lie. In truth we may not get an answer to this in our life times but if for nothing at all wouldnt it be safer to believe in God and realise at the end of the day there isn’t a God than to live your entire life thinking there isn’t a God only to realise that there is one? " yes, it doesnt make him false. you cannot disprove him (yet). But that's not the standard i have for things i build my whole worldview on. And no, it wouldnt be safer. Because which god should you choose to believe in from the tousands that were already believed in?

[@meloney]

@@darylldufu9324 in science, one part of the method is falsification. One can't falsify God. That makes it kinda impossible to take it serious in science. People tend to use God as the answer when things can't be explained. That's biased.

[@Soril2010]

@@darylldufu9324 What you mention halfway through is Pascal's Wager I've always found it silly. Presumably God would know your thoughts and so know if you've just been doing mental lip service to get into heaven, conversely any good deed by an Atheist is not with the selfish intention of securing eternal paradise in heaven and so they might actually have a better chance of getting in if they live a good life without expecting anything in return. Eg. If a devout religious person gives his life to save another person he 'knows' he will not die and will life forever in heaven. If an atheist does it he 'knows' he faces total oblivion, that his one and only life will end forever. It's more of a perceived sacrifice.

[@UdoLattek02]

"Not everything you read is true" *believes everything written in the bible*

[@christopherdepew788]

Facts... good to see at least some people still believe in finding them instead of manipulating them to fit their own ideals.

[@caviestcaveman8691]

Right like wtf you really are just born into whatever religion im sure if he lived in Japan he would be all about the japan religion and never even question it lmaoooo

[@UdoLattek02]

@@caviestcaveman8691 pretty sure the japanese are mainly Christian

[@madday9589]

@@caviestcaveman8691 Many people are converts and definitely question their religion. You could also say many people just follow “modern day science” without ever questioning it and realizing experts could be wrong/there’s still more to learn and what’s “discovered” by them could be false.

[@caviestcaveman8691]

@@madday9589 yup I take it all with a grain of sand

[@Shkunk1]

In engineering classes we used 'J' to represent imaginary numbers rather than using 'I'. We referred to them as jimaginary numbers.

[@achtsekundenfurz7876]

49:31 _LOL_

[@nephilimshammer9567]

Jamariquie

[@billmarshall3082]

"Jamanji" ?

[@plat2716]

In math class we called them complex numbers. Which is what they're called.

[@hueyiroquois3839]

I always figured that engineers did that as an excuse to say "bj".

[@williamwilliam4944]

Pure math major here. Let's break this down. 5:00 "...a collection of elements with a common defined property" Not necessarily. Some sets contain elements which have a common property, some don't. The only assured common property of all elements in an arbitrary set S is that they are all contained in S. 5:15 "In most sets, some numbers are included while others are excluded" I am being pedantic here (admittedly) but it doesn't make sense to say "most sets". There are an infinite number of sets. You can't have "most of" infinity. 6:26 "...remains small..." Again, being pedantic, but it's the set of complex numbers which don't diverge under that formula, beginning with zero. "Remaining small" is sort of subjective. 16:52 "...the main part of the Mandelbrot Set is a perfect cardioid" Maybe I'm assuming what his argument will be, but this is something that is perfectly, and easily, explained. 18:05 This pattern of number sequences also isn't a mystery to mathematicians. 20:10 "...and it doesn't lose complexity, it actually gains it..." And? This is how all fractals work. 20:21 "...I'm gonna suggest to you that this shape tells us something about the way God thinks" How exactly? Aren't you the one who proposes that God has never revealed himself to anyone and is impossible to conceptualize? Are you just asserting that God's thought process is comparable to fractals? How do you know how, or if, God thinks at all? 20:32 "...God is responsible for numbers" Nope. Numbers are a human invention, created to describe perceived physical phenomena. 20:33 "...and so it makes sense, in a Christian worldview..." Why not any other theistic worldview? Why not a Muslim worldview or a Hindu worldview or a Nordic worldview or an ancient Greek worldview? Hell, you haven't shown why this doesn't make sense in a SECULAR worldview. 20:36 "...that when we explore and study numbers, we find intelligence." How is this intelligence? Do you consider all patterns "intelligence"? Furthermore, again, numbers are a human invention. Of course, when we create a structure by infinitely iterating a PATTERN, we will expect PATTERNS to emerge. 20:44 "...not only intelligence, but infinite intelligence, 'cause this thing repeats infinitely." But... we iterated the function infinitely. What's your point? How is this evidence of any intelligence besides human intelligence? 21:44 "...that exists in the mind of God..." Source? Even if Christianity is true, do you have any sort of demonstration that this shape exists in the mind of God, or is it just something you feel would make sense? This is laughably lacking in rigor. 26:35 "Who would've imagined that such beauty would be built into numbers?" You realize beauty is subjective, right? This is not an argument. 29:55 "...is there something special about that formula?" No. There are infinitely many fractals and Julia sets. The Mandelbrot Set is simply the set of all complex numbers for which the Julia set for z^2 + c is path-connected. If you want more information, research it yourself. 34:44 "What causes the beauty in fractals?" Subjective human opinion? 34:54 "What causes the complexity in fractals?" We iterated INFINITELY. Why are you so surprised that complex structures emerge from infinitely iterated functions? 35:00 "The complexity increases as you zoom in..." No it doesn't. The fractal is the fractal. It is infinitely complex everywhere. 37:33 This whole section on "beauty" is completely meaningless and demonstrates nothing. 39:04 "The complexity is 'built' into math" Previously you stated that the math and the computers merely revealed the complexity that already existed but didn't create it. Now you are saying the complexity is a property of math itself. This is a contradiction. 39:17 "Mathematics is the study of the relationship between numbers" This is extremely reductive and mostly wrong. 39:28 "...some of these things that are very basic are hard to define, aren't they? Like consciousness..." What? Consciousness is very basic?? 39:50 "Numbers are a concept of quantity" Still a shaky definition. It depends on how you define "quantity". 40:54 "...the concept, that's not something we created" Not entirely true. Sure we may not have created the quantities of physical objects in nature, but 'quantity' as a concept is a result of human perception, intuition, and classification. 41:16 "Where do laws of math come from?" Laws of logic, derived from philosophy (which have been amended over the years; see Godel's Incompleteness or the Turing Machine Halting Problem), coupled with a set of axioms that were (mostly subjectively) defined. Asking where the laws of logic come from is a much more fruitful question. Study epistemology. 41:29 "Did laws of math evolve?" If you're asking "did laws of math change over time?", then yes. 41:45 "Will that work for math?" Why does it matter? Math is not a physical object (as you yourself said), subject to its environment, under threat of death. 41:47 "Did 7 used to be 3 but it evolved?" Again, completely irrelevant. Evolution is a process that applies to living beings in a physical world. In terms of numerals, 7 used to be VII and was changed. In terms of the concept of the number itself, sometimes 7 IS equal to 3 (for example, in the set of integers modulo 4). Lastly, the concept of equivalence is also subject to a set of axioms which mathematicians defined. Nothing is true in math or philosophy or any medium, except under a set of axioms.

[@sanchalshrirame7168]

As someone else has commented, this video here does seem to be a classic case of "God of the Gaps".

[@lightoftheworld6578]

hmm, this comment intrigues me. Hopefully you won't mind if I look at all your points and give my take on them? I might leave a partial comment and edit in the rest over time, I'm finding myself to do much research on this topic. You seem to be much more literate in math than me, so I'll skip / concede all points before 20:10. Apologies in advance if you feel like I'm "cherry picking" points. 20:10 your point, if I'm correct, seems to be that this fractal getting infinitely more complex doesn't matter because that's how all fractals work, and from my understanding you are correct. I would like to pose a question, however. How are fractals infinitely complex? How as in, what made them like that? Did a human design a fractal to look like that, or have they always looked like this? I can't remember a good timestamp but I believe he makes this point a lot of different ways in the video. 20:21 ok, here's where my low-quality understanding of the Bible is gonna haunt me. And yes, I know quoting "an old book that was probably made up" is a mortal sin on the internet, forgive me. I should also clear up that I've only seen this entire video through once. Honestly I saw your comment and just felt a burden to answer as much as I could, maybe spark a discussion. ANYWAYS, 20:21 . If I can be lazy and just copy what you wrote for a second... "...I'm gonna suggest to you that this shape tells us something about the way God thinks" "How exactly? Aren't you the one who proposes that God has never revealed himself to anyone and is impossible to conceptualize? Are you just asserting that God's thought process is comparable to fractals? How do you know how, or if, God thinks at all?" This is an interesting one. I don't know if God has ever FULLY revealed himself to anyone, as I don't believe the human body / mind could withstand that. But we won't focus on that point, as to me it's not *quite* the point you're making. First off, I feel like you are jumping the gun a little bit. This is subjective, but "suggest to you.... tells us something" doesn't sound to me like an assertion. It sounds like a possibility that Dr. Jason is entertaining. As you somewhat said, I don't think anyone knows how God thinks or operates. what I can tell you, however, is that if we look at what we can confidently say is the Word of God (the Bible), we can get an idea of how God thinks actually. And, God has revealed Himself in some fashion to many people throughout the Bible. The easiest example I can point to, actually, is Jesus Christ. Jesus, being the Son of God and also being One with God, can probably give us some examples. Low and behold! There's Matthew, Mark, Luke and John! Four separate accounts of this Man. I think the parables Jesus speaks in can give us good insight, perhaps. All of his parables seem fairly simple on the surface, but "zooming in" if you will we find an infinite abundance of wisdom. On the surface, the parable of the seeds makes sense, right? If the seed lands in bad soil, or rocks, etc., they die. But if the seed falls in good soil, they live and produce a bunch more seeds. Yeah, that sounds like basic gardening to me. I played Stardew Valley and that's how it worked. But when you ask "what's the actual point to that?", it could mean an infinite number of things depending on perspective. It could literally just be speaking about seeds. It could be talking about Christians. It could be talking about Churches. It could be talking about businesses, animals, any living thing, even by definition of "living" (like with businesses). Jesus' speaking seems to be ambiguous, although one could argue there is a more "ideal" meaning to his words (perhaps, Christians in this example.) Now, let's connect. How does a 2000 year old dude that keeps being painted incorrectly in churches, that said some maybe interesting things here and there, have to do with the the question at hand? Well, it shows that if nothing else, Jesus' knowledge seemed to be infinite. Everything He predicted seems to have come true at least once, even the exact time day as things such as His death. That seems statistically unlikely, if I may. And, we know that Jesus is the Son of God, and that Jesus is God (in human form). TL;DR: We know something about God's understanding and how God thinks because of Jesus and the Bible. 20:32 Yes and no. Yes, God didn't "create" numbers. He didn't say 'this shall be one, and those things, two" and it was so. We decided numbers would be called numbers. We decided "one" would be a single thing. We decided "single" would mean "one" in most contexts. However, whatever you would have called them, and however you would have spaced them out, (assuming reasonableness) this specific graph would have been created somehow. Let me touch on the parentheses there. Dr. Jason says at one point that the universe operates in a specific way regardless of what humans make of it. Somewhere he gives an example of an architect trying to disobey these laws of math and numbers to build a structure, and how that would not work out very well for the architect. You can look at an your water bottle and call it whatever you want, however you want, write it down using whatever letter or number or symbol you want, but at the end of the day you have yourself "one" water bottle. So, Yes and no. God didn't "create" numbers. But there will only ever be "one" of yourself no matter how you want to write it down. I can't change how the universe works and now there is multiple of you. We can change word definitions all day long and go in a circle, but I'm rambling at this point. Reading that back, all that was more directed at the first half of the comment so I'll add this: Let's put aside if God is responsible for numbers or not. They were "created to describe perceived physical phenomena", in your words. And I ask you, how did that phenomena come into being? Did ancient Greece run a poll and they decided "yeah that exists"? Is our perceiving it making it up. Dr. Jason did an excellent job at dismantling this point, so I won't dive deep into it, but any way you frame it, something created it. Whether it was a God, a space jelly, or an explosion of stars, SOMETHING made it. Personally, the evidence points to a God with infinite understanding. 20:33 I notice you didn't explain how it DOES make sense in any other worldview. I would genuinely be interested to see if you can make sense of it in a reply, I'd love to hear it from a math major. Seriously. I love math and numbers, probability and statistics has been one of my favorite courses in college so far and I'm a PSYCHOLOGY major. Speaking of that psychology degree later.... 20:36 + 20:44 you somewhat left out the part where he says "patterns", I notice. You make the point of "again, numbers are a human invention", which I feel like I have answered previously. And to be completely honest, unless you ask further, I feel like my pervious paragraphs have answered both of your points. No matter how we define numbers, this set existed in some form before humans did. Therefore it's impossible for humans to have created such an intricate pattern. 21:44 read above 26:35 "beauty is subjective, right?" here comes that psychology major I talked about, Mr. William. Beauty is... somewhat subjective. Infact, I could even concede that MOST beauty is subjective. However, assuming a "normal" brain if I can call it that without offending a billion people... There is a baseline level of beauty that all humans share. For example, patterns. In some capacity, or at the very least in some form, patterns appeal to everyone. There is something in the brain that just likes it when things look nice and flow well. Do these particular patterns in some or even all areas of the Mandelbrot set appeal to everyone? *Probably* not. However I doubt that even you could say that nothing you have seen in this presentation wasn't at least in ONE aspect, beautiful. Even in grayscale, as Dr. Jason mentions later in the video. My comment is so long I need a part two! My goodness.

[@lightoftheworld6578]

Alright, part two. 29:55 I mean, kind of. I concede this is "subjective", however I find it quite special how "well" this set seems to work in it's intricacy and beauty. You look at many other fractals and they just repeat themselves, like ferns and ice. But this set is the first fractal I've learned about that is THIS unique. How many patterns there are! It's not just a shape that repeats but what other fractal has seahorses and elephants among other things! And I'll raise the question, since you mention other fractals: What's not to say they aren't beautiful? What's to say there isn't another fractal even MORE beautiful and interesting and "intelligent" (weird word to use) than this? Or have humans just not created one yet, hmmmm? 34:54 read above 37:33 uh... ok, I guess. I'm sorry you got nothing from it. 39:04 "Previously you stated that the math and the computers merely revealed the complexity that already existed but didn't create it. Now you are saying the complexity is a property of math itself. This is a contradiction." This is probably the only thing that I'm just going to straight up point to what you said and say "no, you are wrong". I can't even completely discern what you're trying to say here. If you're saying that "he said we created math, but complexity is part of math, and he's saying that the complexity existed before math", then I think you misunderstood what he was trying to say. I'll refer to earlier points. Actually, I'll refer to what you said earlier: "Numbers are a human invention, created to describe perceived physical phenomena." So in a sense math is man-made, but it's based off of the universe. The universe wasn't man made. Math, depending on how you look at is, is either man-made and / or made by the universe and it's just something we have to explain. If you're saying anything else, you're have to clarify for me please. 39:17 I'm not a math major, I have no comment. The definition Dr. Jason gave worked for me. 39:28 not sure what you mean, Listen to what he said directly following it, and / or please let me know in a reply what you mean. 39:50 Forgive me if this sounds rude, but this sounds like you're grasping at straws to be honest. Amidst some of your genuinely good questions and comments, this just seems silly to mention. You do you, though. 40:54 debatable. This comment is getting so long that my laptop has started to lag, so I'll leave this one. Apologies for leaving one unanswered. 41:16 interesting answer you have, honestly. It falls perfectly in line with the type of answer Dr. Jason predicted one would have. I find it humorous that some of your answers have ideas of what Dr. Jason should study to "enlighten" himself with. I didn't know you were an expert in those fields as well, Mr. William. Although, for all you tell him to study those works, it personally seems to me like you have done very little to study "his" field. That is, the Bible. Study Genesis ;) 41:29 No, that's not what he's asking. Evolving is different from changing, however they ARE similar. Either way, the laws have always been constant. Our UNDERSTANDING of the law has changed, however. Your last two points I will leave due both to the previously mentioned stuttering of my laptop and also because they don't make much sense to me, please elaborate in a reply. I have one last thing to note. 16:52 "Maybe I'm assuming what his argument will be, but this is something that is perfectly, and easily, explained." I don't know if you were writing this comment mid video, but, whatever was "perfectly, and easily, explained", seems to have no explanation. Oh well. No hate, nor disrespect, Mr. William. As I stated in the very beginning, your comment intrigued me. I would love to hear a reply from you. And despite my formalities, I'm only 19, so don't worry. I'm not some old guy with nothing better to do than harrass someone in a comments section.

[@williamwilliam4944]

@@lightoftheworld6578 it seems youtube deleted my original reply. Although I would love to type another essay-length comment, I am consumed by laziness. Would you like to discuss this over a call? Discord maybe?

[@lightoftheworld6578]

@@williamwilliam4944 over call is great! KZbin deleted my reply as well, it doesn't like seeing discord profiles in the comments, even when you space it out. In any case, It's the same as my name. Six thousand eighty-nine. Let's see if that works. (And if I butchered writing the numbers as words, I apologize 😅)

[@epigone1796]

So, let's sum it up: "Laws of mathematics are conceptual, universal, invariant and exceptionless" - True "Why? There's no other explanation, so it's God." - Argument from ignorance "And it is surely our, christian God." - no logical proof. Why it's not muslim one or any other? Fits here too. Hour wasted.

[@NWard1210]

It's an hour of 'god of the gaps', quite literally.

[@neutrino78x]

""Laws of mathematics are conceptual, universal, invariant and exceptionless" - True "Why? There's no other explanation, so it's God." - Argument from ignorance" Incorrect. Two possible explanations, equally possible. - God is the one that's eternal, it created mathematics - mathematics was always there Impossible to know which one is right. Since I see a lot of other evidence of God all around be, I go with #1. ""And it is surely our, christian God." - no logical proof. Why it's not muslim one or any other? Fits here too. " If there is a God then all religions are talking about God. Allah and Yahweh are both God. The Hindu gods are God. Understand?

[@epigone1796]

@@neutrino78x >Two possible explanations, equally possible. There might be any other explanations. Also, there's no way to determine the possibility of those events. > God is the one that's eternal, it created mathematics "God is eternal" isn't a requirement. >Impossible to know which one is right. Since I see a lot of other evidence of God all around be, I go with #1. There was argument from ignorance in the video ("It makes sense only in christian world view, so it is right"). But you, instead, use an appeal to personal experience ("Since I see a lot of other evidence of God, I go with #1"). Your experience is not a reliable evidence for anyone except you. >If there is a God then all religions are talking about God. Allah and Yahweh are both God. The Hindu gods are God. Jason Lisle said "Christian" several times in such contexts as "it only makes sense in a Christian world view". So if you don't believe in Christ, then it makes no sense to you even if you believe in God/gods, Jason Lisle says.

[@bennydagimp66]

Christians: "you cannot comprehend God nor his actions" Also Christians: "this is God's brain seeeeeeeeeeeeee" hold on a second, just heard a voice in my head telling me to sacrifice my firstborn............... jkjk he was messing with me whew thank GOD

[@citizenguy]

Your argument is false. Dr. Lisle is saying we can get a glimpse of God's power. Dr. Lisle did not say humans can fully comprehend.

[@algorev8679]

@@citizenguy True, but honestly trying to say things about god by looking at one single thing he has done is, at best, insulting to him. You wouldn't want people to assume things based random minute things you created and that they chose as important, right? That's just reductive.

[@ServantOfJesusChrist777]

Only a fool tries to make an argument against something about which he knows NOTHING. But a wise man searches for wisdom and knowledge to base his arguments upon.

[@bennydagimp66]

@@citizenguy never read the bible?

[@citizenguy]

@@bennydagimp66 show me the quote of Dr. Lisle claiming that the Mandelbrot set allows humans to fully comprehend the universe.

[@taleladar]

There's no better application of the expression, "It is what it is." It's not that the laws of mathematics require a mind to exist. But a mind is required to discover, comprehend, and appreciate them.

[@roems6396]

Hence, why math is discovered, and not created.

[@Lighthousepreserve]

Your platitude which means nothing. Say thst when you enter a 747 that just evolved?

[@taleladar]

@@Lighthousepreserve Uh. Okay. Whatever. You make so little sense right now, I'm wondering who you even meant to reply to.

[@brianp6859]

@@roems6396 But the reality that math represents could not be so mathematically perfect unless it was created, just not created by us.

[@TheFirstBrizz]

@@brianp6859 you have no way to prove your assertions while you maintain the burden of proof.

[@bonnielucas3244]

The older I get, the more the Bible sounds perfect. I wish I could help more people, with my very limited ability. Have served the Lord best I can for 38 years. Creation is beyond astonishing. Oh Lord, our Lord, how excellent is Thy Name in all the earth.

[@F15CEAGLE]

Maranatha.

[@Chaturanger]

Read exodus 21. Your bible endorse slavery. Perfect morality?

[@davezanin1863]

Amen, praise God

[@mistafizz5195]

Believe in Christ all you want but fractals don't prove the existence of god in anyway. I would know I actually studied math. Whoever can discover the existence of god using just math would've won a Nobel prize already.

[@seanstack180]

This is what visuals are like on psychedelics. This is kind of what thoughts are like as well when you’re in a thought loop. The understanding and emotional experience of the infinite becomes more tangible. Hard to describe typically with words but the fractals of this Mandelbrot set really help paint the picture!

[@Buf037]

People also report seeing 4 dimensional geometry which in a sober state the human mind cannot comprehend. Psychedelics truly are one of the greatest wonders of the world

[@Kanzu999]

@@Buf037 They might report it, but they would never be able to actually see 4 dimensional geometry. In fact even if they had the experience, they wouldn't be able to tell whether or not they saw 4 dimensional geometry, because no one knows what it looks like. Having said that, psychedelics certainly are incredible, and I've had many amazing experiences with them. And certainly I've seen indescribably complex and beautiful geometry, especially with DMT. It's absolutely mind-blowing. Psychedelics can potentially be so otherworldly that I'm not surprised some people might interpret their experience as having 4 dimensional geometry, but thinking about that in terms of physics and math, and the fact that we can't even imagine what 4 dimensional geometry would look like, I've never even considered it as a possibility that I could experience 4 dimensional geometry. I would rather say that closed eye visuals start feeling kinda 2 dimensional when you're on lower doses, and then as you increase the dose, you start adding depth, so that it becomes 3 dimensional, while at the same time, the visuals will also become more clear and complex. And when I say complex, I don't just mean in the sense that there might be more complex geometry or colors, but it also becomes much more complex in how you experience your visuals. In a sense, the visuals can become manifestations of our own thoughts and feelings. While I do think there is a danger in people sometimes being too fast to accept what they experience as being true while under psychedelics, I also don't have a doubt that psychedelics can greatly help us understand our own minds, and also consciousness and the brain in general.

[@darkness3308]

Kind of like the fractals you see with a good crack to the noggin.

[@NA-gd3sd]

You don't "see" dimensions, you experience it.

[@darkness3308]

@@NA-gd3sd Granted, all of you may be right you don't see dimensions (without the help of some LSD), But keep in mind we are still looking at fractals here in this video, and those you can see.

[@Charzilian]

I will never understand how people can just deny something with so much evidence, yet believe something with literally no evidence, but evidence against it. this guy isn't a scientist, he is a preacher.

[@G_Singh222]

Is science able to prove something which isn’t bound by space time and matter ?

[@Charzilian]

@@G_Singh222 and you call yourself rational?

[@G_Singh222]

@@Charzilian Stop with the melodrama, what’s irrational about my question ?

[@Charzilian]

@@G_Singh222 it's irrational because you start with the assumption that there is something unbound by spacetime and matter.

[@Charzilian]

@@G_Singh222 also, it was irrelevant to my comment in the first place.

[@theboombody]

When I first found out about time dilation it freaked me out way more than finding out about fractals. This world is full of some very DEEP mysteries. No question about it.

[@iriskeniafernandez]

Tell me more

[@iriskeniafernandez]

@@acbulgin2 this is fascinating

[@theboombody]

@@iriskeniafernandez Another weird mathematical thing is it's super easy to find the area of an ellipse, and we have a nice easy simple closed-form formula for it. But finding the circumference of an ellipse is insanely difficult and we still don't really have a simple closed-form formula for it, even after centuries of searching.

[@alitlweird]

@@theboombody 😲

[@lloydwaycott8178]

Hi theboombody, did you see a youtube video on time dilation? If so could you recommend it to me? Cheers.

[@Balzdeepinurmama]

I’m an atheist. Looking at te title and listening to just the first 15 minutes I can say this means absolutely nothing. For 1, atheists not being able to explain something does NOT equal “god exists.” 2. Even IF his little math show proved a god existed, it would ABSOLUTELY NOT prove te Christian god. That has already been disproven. So we’re back at start wondering what a god would want from us and withholding belief in any specific god until we have reason to believe in a specific god.

[@DavidVonR]

I have a mathematics degree and I consider myself a Christian. I love the beauty of math and science. Fractals like the Mandelbrot set appear in a branch of physics called dynamical systems and chaos theory. The strange attractors associated with the Lorenz system is another example of a fractal. Lorenz showed that convection in the atmosphere could be described by a set of non-linear differential equations, and when you plot these equations, you get the fractal pattern of strange attractors. Fractals appear all over the place in math and physics.

[@ralphjune9798]

so easily explainable from a science POV then!

[@TanyaRadic]

This proves we live in God's matrix

[@vaibhavsati538]

@@TanyaRadic No it doesn't

[@06wrx_]

@@TanyaRadic idk how it proves that. somebody’s brainwashed and grasping for straws.

[@theTavis01]

Isn't is amazing how EVOLUTION creates so many fractals, David?

[@zach9962]

God not being real is inconvenient for those that have built their lives around it. These people see the intricacies of our universe and never once assume the possibility that it could've been Rick Sanchez

[@jameson2916]

The idea of God not being real is inconvenient for those that have built their lives around it. Just like all that intricacy and ourselves being attributed to "randomness" being a lie, is inconvenient for those who have built their lives around it. Never understanding that design only comes from an intelligent mind.

[@kooldudematt1]

God being real is inconvenient for fools who choose to ignore the fact that a spontaneously generated universe is _literally_ less likely to occur than the formation of a functional aircraft in the aftermath of a thermonuclear explosion at a plane factory.

[@jameson2916]

@@kooldudematt1 And its not just by a little either. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction

[@thepiratepeter4630]

​@@jameson2916 This dialogue is equivalent to: "1+1 not being equal to 3 is inconvenient for those that have built their lives around it." "Oh really? Two can play this game! 1+1 not being equal to 2 is inconvenient for those that have built their lives around it."

[@jameson2916]

@@thepiratepeter4630 I see you've been inconvenienced 😆

[@Snoil]

As an aspie, with an IQ that has me mostly working with atheists (Im sure most know what I mean here, no denigration of anyone is ok) this might help me talk more openly. We are commanded to share the word, which I have not been any good at-thank you for the help!

[@AFRoSHEENT3ARCMICHAEL69]

Yeah brain IQ has nothing to do with God which is experienced in the Heart. That's why the word Earth is a anagram for hEart. It's Heart. Hear t. He art. The Romans called it Terra. Terahertz is Trillions is Try is Triangle. Torah, Torus, Taurus, Tau Rho, Two. Plus none of you or most of you don't understand why the Greek alphabet is the Alpha and Omega and really all alphabets and numbered systems which are also originally gnostic symbols tied to whatever showed up and then those pyramids. Naw mean? Art bridges the gap between the material and the spiritual aka the 5D 6D Twilight zone.

[@AFRoSHEENT3ARCMICHAEL69]

The Christogram Chi Rho is pronounced exactly like Cairo the capital of Egypt. It's the X symbol that comes from the sign of the cross OR what we know call the Chladni Figures. Xmas? It's Ten. The One&zerO. The A and 0. Ask them where the ratio of the musical strings come from. This X comes from the 2:1 octave in the center or middle. Where'd all that go down? the center east? Anyways what else has a 2:1 ratio? Water H2O. Also the color violet has a 2:1 ratio. I realized this from an Epiphany hence the name epiphysis gland which is your Pineal gland. The name of the place Jacob saw was called Peniel meaning God face to face talking about your bodies center.

[@gantz4u]

Tell them they hold blind faith in the big bang theory because of the effectiveness of the math model in natural science. They are indoctrinated into a theory. That got proven wrong when the James Webb looked and proved their math model is wrong. Big bang never happened.its ober. Big bang is just as a goofy religion as any other creationist theory from their own perspectives. Then tell them to go listen to Neil degrasse Tyson feed you bread crumbs about more dimensions and what a 3 dimensional creature looks like from the perspective of a 2d creature. Its the Rogan episode. I thought Tyson was a fraud until I realized 90% of the stuff he says is from the perspective of some high ranking quantum phycisist tasked with trying to teach a pre school shapes and colors. The Rogan episode he speaks midwit tier. I think the CIA is on board. is it religion? is it aliens? is it multi dimensional? is it time travelers? and the answer is nobody knows. We dont know.

[@davezanin1863]

Praise God, spread it

[@mistafizz5195]

Believe in Christ all you want but fractals don't prove the existence of god in anyway. I would know I actually studied math. Whoever can discover the existence of god using just math would've won a Nobel prize already.

[@gabrieltaggart]

“we can’t believe everything we read in a book” pretty ironic thing to say coming from a christian

[@rookandpawn]

6:02 The Mandelbrot Set 14:00 Plotting the Mandelbrot set 14:50 Seeing the emerging patterns 16:20 Exploring the set 38:00 Discussion - Numbers, Concepts, Complexity and God 48:20 Fractals in the Universe and God

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

Which disprove Ken Ham's lies that complexity requires a god. Its math, no god needed.

[@stephenhays]

@@ethelredhardrede1838 you make no sense at all! Numbers prove there is one true God!

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

@@stephenhays Saying that does not make it true. The principles of math are independent of gods or men.

[@sdays59]

@@ethelredhardrede1838 You're a fool to believe that. People's intelligence prove God's existence. What humans and animals create are incredible, and these creations ironically has nothing to do with them. They've merely discovered what already exists.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

@@sdays59 Matt. 5:22 Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire. The rest of your post is just fact free assertions in denial of evidence. I bet you think there was a Great Flood. When do you think that happened?

[@robinmartz9052]

I mentioned that God is the greatest scientist of all and someone scoffed at me. But look what He DID! I am always amazed

[@Dann-md9eq]

He did what though?

[@brianmi40]

Yes, do LOOK: Leviticus 25:44-46 Exodus 21:20-21

[@josephlong944]

Close towards the end he says “I’m writing a book” my thought was “how in depth does he go”😂 . Seriously though,this was/is absolutely amazing. Thankyou

[@jamon283]

Philosophy student here. This is called rationalism. This conference is the religious equivalent of an atheist saying that there is no soul because neurosciences have proven that we are nothing more than our brain. Empiricism and rationalism are two opposite philosophical world vies. Using math, reason and logic you can reach the conclusion that there has to be a God, but, on the other hand, if you focus only on what you see, on factual data and experimental knowledge, you'll reach the conclusion that there is no God. So the question arises: which is more real? The path of reason or the path of senses? Rationalists are the one who see the first as the real one, and they'll even go on to try to make sense of the empirical world through their rationalistic vision, distorting reality in order to make them accord with the world we live in. On the other hand, empiricists present a vision where we are nothing more than what we can see and experience, they give a depressing vision of the world because the only thing empirical knowledge gives us is the feeling of being small an unimportant, it's an inhumane vision. You might be tempted to choose one or the other, as the guy in the video has done, but you should know this is an old debate and most modern vision take account of both rationalism and empiricism. Take his arguments with a grain of salt, since he has entered philosophical terrain without acknowledging it and presenting his view as the correct one without realizing that his arguments are in the terrain of philosophy and not science, they are metaphysical and he shouldn't be presenting them as factual, since they are just an interpretation of the world.

[@ppheanix]

I found this amazing pattern in 1990 when studying software programming (as well as the Julia Set) I used to run the program on my PC XT (10 MHz turbo speed) -- took several hours to appear Later, I found a program that ran automatically and on my PC AT-486 at 10 MHz (faster than the XT) The spiral also appears on a corn cob

[@verigone2677]

In my College Abstract Mathematics Class in 1998, we explored the Mandlebrot among many others, we affectionately called Mandlebrot the Cauliflower Fractal because when flattened on a slide, the outside edge of the cauliflower looks a great deal like the edge of the mandlebrot. I couldn't get the whole way through this guy's presentation because he kept taking the achievements of man away from us in his explanation of the Mandlebrot trying to extend divinity upon it. Humans discovered Cardioids in mathematics and learns how to apply them, and numbers are a concept of Ratio that when numbers are whole can be used for counting as well. Cardioids are applied by humans and are observed throughout nature because any spiral shape of movement with one dominant opposing force will form cardioid patterns...kind of like because we came from a big bang and gravity exists, cardioidal motion is at the root of everything we find in the universe...

[@rebeccaw68]

@@verigone2677 Key word "discovered".

[@verigone2677]

@@rebeccaw68 no matter the origin of something, be it divine or mundane be it fleeting or eternal, learning about it is ALWAYS discovery. Mathematical concepts are NOT signs of divinity, they are merely tools for analyzing patterns, creating better tools, and planning for the future. The cardioid has NO meaning outside of a cartesian diagram, and in every instance of a natural cardioid being discovered it is self evident that the atomic structures would make those shapes. When applied to social science analysis, cardioids and similar derivations are useful in normalizing data sets to discover the impacts of multivariate stimuli across socio-economic boundaries. It is even more disingenuous to behave like you can't just use the complex number set without context for each of those numbers being used. If one is looking at something designed, the patterns of each constituent part are perfectly engineered for their specific purpose, using the best materials locally available to its creator. The inconsistency of patterns observed in a designed item would be self evident from surface observation in most cases, and easily identifiable under more scrutiny. However when you observer the natural universe, the patterns maintain consistency throughout and have direct route of repeated physical processes from just after the Big Bang to Today...no magic, just Motion, Gravity, Light, and matter in a field of Extraplanar matter and energy not evidently, directly interactable....maybe your God still live in the anti-matter, but I wouldn't bet on it. Please stop looking for a benevolent sky daddy and use your book to discover what was truly fucked up about the people of the past and the people of the present and do your best to be a force for good...become your own sky daddy. Religion is a psychological coping mechanism created by man to deal with the enormity of thought. It allowed them to compartmentalize thoughts about what they have seen but do not understand. Without that compartmentalization they would probably have become very easy prey, as that kind of thought on its own generates dopamine. Eventually, these religious ides become campfire stories that are shared and in the sharing become collective instead of individual. Later, they are corrupted and used to command. This cycle of religiosity is a natural evolution of a mind of thought and dreams. One with time to contemplate and no distractions will create patterns where none actually exist in order to make their internal world view and what they see co-exist. We were eating all kinds of plants and fungi that could do all kinds of crap to our brains, we would then rationalize and contemplate those things...this process started before we could speak a true language, and potentially started around the time we began making cave drawings or began forming words. Add on top of that dreams and well, its not hard to see where the idea of God came from, why it was important for the establisment of civilization, and why it is also the source of so much conflict. If it were truly divine, would it not be even more self evident than the nose upon your face?

[@rebeccaw68]

@@verigone2677 lol, you still believe something came from nothing, or chaos? Try this: just for once, be totally objective, try your best not to allow your mind to be in opposition and ask God to reveal Himself with as much sincerity as you can muster and see what happens. If God does not exist you'll get nothing, but if He does, you'll experience something that will be very different. You have nothing to lose, just try it.

[@verigone2677]

@@rebeccaw68 why does it have to come from nothing to not be divine. We have no idea what the entire cycle of a universal expansion is. It is very likely that the nature of black holes and dimensional behaviors of Dark Matter and Energy serve as an never ending universal state cycle system. Just like all matter and energy changes state in the observable universe, it must also change state from existence to non-existence by an as of yet unknown physical phenomenon. Then again, any does it have to come from anything, your terrestrial existence and inablity to conceptualize 4th or 5th dimensional universalities prevents you from understanding the nested cyclical nature of matter and energy. Logically speaking there MUST be a period where the Universe exists and where it doesn't, interdimensional mathematics suggests that all possible configurations of the entire universe exist simultaneously. I had my revelation at the age of 17, and it pushed me away from worship of a God. The book so venerated for its divine love yet contains only contradictory paths for life that are supposed to be simultaneously good, yet both paths only lead to strife. Either be the sword of god and bring retribution to your oppressors, or allow yourself to be subjugated...there is no middle ground in Christianity where the working class rise to a position of self determination in the law. Instead they demand you maintain your lesser station, because that way you get all your rewards in heaven... Do you know why that is? If you don't question your worth here, where it really matters, you aren't competing with those who hold unequal power. If all of the poor rise up against the rich, the rich lose everytime...EVERY TIME. Every single Abrahamic faith is equal parts exploration of mystery, and subjugation of the working class to the abject slavery and serfdom.

[@lordquintus1419]

“Could you believe it’s beautiful? No you couldn’t” on repeat for 1 hour

[@majorslayer3546]

and that the end you go against the scientific method and just assume that it points towards you premade beliefs.

[@citizenguy]

Quintus says, "I'm an animal with no soul and no purpose in life. I like to bully people who believe in religion." On repeat for his troll comments.

[@lordquintus1419]

@@citizenguy sure do :)

[@bztube888]

Saying somebody who just bullied basically all living things outside his/her church, saying they have no soul.

[@dariorivellini2159]

@@citizenguy bullies are the absolute worst. I heard in prison they bully pedophiles and that’s just unchristianly as hell. And I can’t believe they just allow the woke left to bully Nazis online when they’re free to have that belief. It’s not like it’s causing anyone harm just by being a nazi. Not to mention they bully Christians now too! The 65% of Americans that are Christians are the real bullied minority. Lettuce prey for they/them.

[@azaas]

The only thing this video instilled into me, was awe and respect towards the beauty and wisdom of the scientific method :3

[@cameronhill8279]

Scientific method was invented by Judeo-Christian values :)

[@pedrorodriguessavini5603]

@@cameronhill8279 Judeo-Christian values prevented humankind from getting a better understanding of the universe around them all through the Middle Age. Great scientific minds were killed by the Church on the grounds that what they proposed didn't correspond to sacred scriptures, even though we now know they are true. Nicolas Copernic is one example. The scientific method is the opposite of faith, it doesn't require believe because it relies on proof.

[@trumanyoung1345]

@@cameronhill8279 No, it wasn't

[@cameronhill8279]

@@trumanyoung1345 What did then?

[@vutruongquang3501]

​@@cameronhill8279 Imperialism and history, as well as human's greed for more control over new land

[@williamwilliam4944]

42:03 "...laws of math have always been the way they are." False. 42:08 "Were laws of math created by people?" Yes. 42:15 "...because if we created them, we could've created them different." Yes, we could have, by choosing different axioms and rules of logic. However, that wouldn't be practical, since the math in that case might not reflect physical phenomena, which is, after all, why math was invented as a study in the first place. 42:48 "The planets, the way the planets orbit, they obey mathematical laws." No, they obey physical laws, described by mathematics. Furthermore, these physical laws were created to describe the motion of the planets, not the other way around. 43:20 "...the universe is constantly changing" So? Math can't arise from a dynamic system? Without change (movement, etc), we wouldn't have created math in the first place, since a thought itself is a physiological change. 43:45 "The universe has 3 dimensions of space..." False. Many physicists agree that the number of spatial dimensions is larger than 3. 44:26 "They stem from the mind of God" You're doing a lot of suggesting and not a lot of demonstrating. What is God? Please define God and provide evidence of his (its?) existence. Then, demonstrate that it is indeed your God, and it does have a mind. Next, demonstrate what it means for a concept to "stem" from a mind, and finally, demonstrate that the laws of math stem from the mind of God, whatever that means. 44:45 "Laws of mathematics are conceptual, universal, invariant, exceptionless entities." Which 'Laws' are you referring to? Are you referring to mathematical truths in general? In which case, you are wrong on 3 of the 4 counts. Mathematical truths are indeed conceptual. They are not universal, since they may not apply under different axioms. They are not invariant, since they DO change with time. They are not exceptionless either. For example, 2 + 2 = 4 under standard integer addition, but 2 + 2 = 1 under integer addition modulo 3. It also depends on how you define +, but that's another conversation. 44:52 "...characteristics make sense in the Christian worldview, where mathematics is a reflection of the way God thinks..." I don't think this is even true. Where in the Bible does it state that mathematics is a reflection of the way God thinks? Isn't God's thinking impossible to comprehend? 45:23 "God's thoughts are conceptual / God is omnipresent / God does not change with time / God is sovereign" Do you have evidence of these claims? How do you know the nature of God's thoughts? God does not change with time, but his morals do, since he once allowed slavery and now doesn't (Colossians 3:22-24, Ephesians 6:5-8, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Titus 2:9-10, etc), made the 10 commandments (twice) to revert his own old law, etc? Or perhaps this infinitely moral being still condones slavery? How do you know anything about God? Because a book told you, and you believe everything you read? 45:29 "None of those properties of laws of mathematics would make sense in a secular or naturalistic worldview" Why not? Surely something can exist conceptually in a secular worldview. 45:42 "...but how could you possibly know that?" It is derived from the axioms. No God needed. 45:59 "You assume the laws of physics are the same there, you assume the laws of mathematics are the same there." No, we KNOW the laws of physics are the same there. Not an assumption. And again, what do you mean by "laws of mathematics"? Like, the commutative law? 46:03 "How do they know that? Have they been there?" Do you need to go somewhere to know something about that place? If you see that your neighbor's house is on fire, do you need to enter the house to know that it's on fire? Does a detective need to be at a crime scene while the crime is happening to determine what happened? 46:06 "It's in the Christian worldview that God is sovereign over the entire universe..." How do YOU know THAT? Seems like special pleading. 46:14 "All mathematicians assume that the laws of mathematics are the same tomorrow as they were yesterday." What laws?? Plus, mathematical truths are derived, not assumed. There is no assumption needed, unlike Christianity. 46:30 "How can you know anything about a future you've never experienced from a secular worldview?" How can you know it from a Christian worldview? We both have axioms. If I throw a ball in the air, I can know with the same degree of certainty as you that it will fall back down. We create models which describe natural phenomena, withstand scrutiny, and have immense predictive power. Is the knowledge absolute? No! No knowledge is absolute. But it's the most reasonable method we have of determining truth. This is why physical laws change so often (contrary to what you believe); more accurate models are discovered. Einstein's relativity being used in place of Newton's model of gravity is a classic example of this. 46:38 "...because I know God" No, you don't. 46:40 "...and he's told me some things about the future." Like what? How do you know it was God? Were those things reliably accurate? Were they peer reviewed? Did they survive scrutiny? How do we determine which voice in which person's head is actually God? How do we know you aren't just making this up? Or delusional? Or confirmation biased? 47:12 "Laws of mathematics existed before people" No, they didn't. First of all, you're arguing for physical laws, not mathematical laws (which you still haven't defined, anyway). Secondly, physical laws were CREATED to describe things like planetary motion. The planets don't move the way they do because of these laws. The laws are the way they are because the planets move that way. 50:40 "Why do fractals occur in math and the physical world?" It's almost like.... math was created..... to describe the physical world..... 52:43 "The physical universe obeys mathematical laws" NO! Math DESCRIBES the physical universe! Not the other way around!

[@awstenmielke2474]

thanks for showing me this argument explained this way. i had similar feelings like something just isnt being explained right here and you explained it perfectly and cleared up my confusion. im also using this info to do further research for debating my chrisitian friends, so thanks again!

[@williamwilliam4944]

@@awstenmielke2474 no problem!

[@jigsawjason1984]

If you seriously think laws of math haven't always been the same, how exactly in supposed 50million b.c.. can 1+1= 900?? Ok Boomer.....

[@williamwilliam4944]

@@jigsawjason1984 you are clearly demonstrating your ignorance here. First of all, the statement "1+1=2" is not a mathematical law. Secondly, the statement "1+1=900" can be true, under different axioms, under different definitions of + or =, under different frameworks. For example, 1+1=900 under integer addition modulo 2. You are taking your measly high school math education and arguing as though you're a mathematician. Did you even bother to research the sources I presented?

[@bryanburton6087]

@@williamwilliam4944 Dammit. Michael ran away after getting owned only one time. I was hoping for more amusement from him. Oh, well. Loved reading your thoughts. Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. Peace

[@rphjacobs9197]

I wonder if creation was not in a ‘fallen’ state…. Would we see more perfect fractals in nature?? When all is redeemed will we see nature in more perfect ‘infinite’ fractals??? Therefore no more decay or degeneration… only eternity. The beauty of it all is hard for me to express.

[@TheAngryAtheist]

If nothing died, nothing would live. Decay and degeneration are necessary components of living. With our current birthrate, wed be shoulder to shoulder with everyone within like 3 or 4 generations. It would be utter chaos.

[@rphjacobs9197]

@@TheAngryAtheist … I understand your thinking… and yes… that’s exactly true in the world in which we now live. But if you saw through my eyes from my perspective you would see things so differently. Don’t close your mind to all possibilities. The more I learn the more I realize how shallow man’s understanding is. We see through a glass dimly… but not forever.

[@TheAngryAtheist]

@@rphjacobs9197 oh no, my mind is open friend :) i just try not to consider everything thats possible, because theres only so much time in a day. I try not to consider things just on the basis that it feels better to me. Heck, id love to be able to fly at will, but humans cant fly, so i wouldnt waste time considering flying humans as a possibility, regardless of how open my mind is... whats the saying? Be open minded, but not so open that your brain falls out. Cheers!

[@rphjacobs9197]

@@TheAngryAtheist …. Gotcha! And humans can fly. And there was a day a man thought about flying…. Also, sometimes that ‘feels better to me’ is an intuitive confirmation. Sometimes not.. 😉 Blessings!

[@TheAngryAtheist]

@@rphjacobs9197 well, humans can sit in machines they build that can fly lol. So yea you got me! But lets be real, i was talking about superman type flying. Yep, i cant disagree there. For me, its not good enough, but i understand why its good enough for others Cheers!

[@TBrandt027]

"I can't understand why flowers look so beautiful, so fairies exist." "If fairies didn't exist I would be very sad and my life wouldn't make any sense anymore. I don't want to be sad and give my life meaning, so fairies exist." "The only reason we humans see beauty is because fairies enchant us with the beauty of their creations. You can see beauty? So fairies exist." When it comes to thousands of other magical creatures and gods, believers see through moronic arguments immediately.

[@neutrino78x]

"I can't understand why flowers look so beautiful, this is scientific proof that God does not exist."

[@neutrino78x]

"It is possible even in theory to have objective, scientific proof that God does not exist."

[@madisont3123]

@@neutrino78x nobody actually makes that argument though

[@neutrino78x]

@@madisont3123 Timo B did.

[@russwaddel08]

@@madisont3123 this is all they have. Because the numbers are not on their side.

[@conradvd7262]

Show this to someone who wants to know why they should take math in school.

[@DiffEQ]

THIS is definitely not a reason to take math in school. Math is used to determine things, not loosely affiliate things that are real and imagined.

[@MMMM-sv1lk]

I showed this to my nephew, he ran away from home... 😭😢 Guess it backfired.

[@DeezNuts-gl6nx]

@@DiffEQ You have a very pedestrian view of math. Math is the language of the universe. The Fibonacci spiral is proof of that. So yeah, you can take math to determine things but you also need math to understand things such as why your dna is a unique genetic code. It’s very good that you’re retired because I wouldn’t trust you to run a bath let alone build anything

[@Minister-Peter-V1-Church]

@@DiffEQ Heres some maths for you Obstacles to the formation of life on primitive earth would have been extremely challenging. Even a simple protein molecule is so rich in information that the entire history of the universe since the Big Bang wouldn't give you the time you would need to generate that molecule by chance. Even if the first molecule had been much simpler than those today, there's a minimum structure that protein has to have for it to function. You don't get that structure in a protein unless you have at least seventy-five amino acids or so. First, you need the right bonds between the amino acids. Second, amino acids come in right-handed and left-handed versions, and you have to get the left-handed ones. Third, the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence, like letters in a sentence. Run the odds of these things falling into place on their own and you find out that the probabilities in forming a rather short functional protein at random would be one chance in a hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That is a ten with one-hundred and twenty-five zeros after it. And that would only be one protein molecule, a fairly simple cell would need between three-hundred and five-hundred protein molecules. When you look at those odds and evidence, you can see why, since the 1960's, scientist have abandoned the idea that chance played any significant role in the origin of DNA or proteins

[@Minister-Peter-V1-Church]

@@DiffEQ and that's not taking into account that we need rna. Dna. And proteins all to exist at the same time perfectly coded for each other for one to exist. They are symbiotic.

[@themonsterbaby]

Human : creates math. Creates some arbitrary rules to plot out numbers in a graph. Discovers it creates cool fractal patterns. Also human : Aha!! Proof of a supernatural god!!!! 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[@MosesMatsepane]

No, it's different when it comes to fractals, they are not arbitrary. Fractals have been discovered in nature as well. What's fascinating about them is a concept known as self-similarity. Mandelbrot was a genius, and he inspired an entire generation of mathematicians.

[@themonsterbaby]

@@MosesMatsepane these patterns come from rules that we created to plot the points..... it's not that astounding. It's just cool to look at. This pattern don't occur naturally. It occurs because of the rules we made up to plot out the points on a graph.

[@PabloCardonaMusic]

You're insane if you believe the Mandelbrot set is "made up" the finitude of the human mind could never capture such thing, besides great mathematicians like Roger Penrose acknowledge that these mathematical concepts are not invented but discovered.

[@thatsalex5298]

The problem is that this has nothing to do with god. One cannot just look at patterns and say „hence god“ (looking at you, golden ratio)

[@neutrino78x]

"The problem is that this has nothing to do with god." No, but it has to do with God. "One cannot just look at patterns and say „hence god“" We're saying, "hence God", not "hence god", but sure you can. It's subjective and not scientific, but yes, this is evidence of the existence of God, who wrote the laws of physics with the intention that at least one intelligent species would evolve, and then left it on autopilot, with everything occurring as has been discovered by science. The Mandlebrot Set can be interpreted as evidence that an intelligence wrote the laws of physics. A "higher power" if you prefer but most of us write it in short hand as "God". Not any specific religion just the general concept of a higher power. (the gods of the Ancient Greeks and Romans, the Hindu gods, Yahweh and Allah are all God. All are equally correct.)

[@fireguy-id7ky]

Exactly I could look at a lamp and be like “god gave us this”

[@neutrino78x]

@@fireguy-id7ky nope. Math was discovered. We're talking about something natural here bro, that's the whole point.

[@davidross5593]

That's Alex! Did you watch the video? Why would concept designs be the same as physical? Note the keyword design. Design immediately points to a designer. What's the point of a design if there is no designer? Honestly what's the point of any design if there is no designer? Even useless items that have no definitive point or actual benefit, has a "design" and someone with a mind created them. But there is obviously a point between a useless item with no specific benefit and a useful item with a specific benefit. Do you realize there is irreducible complexity in us humans, both male and in female that it is impossible for it to come into existence without a mind?

[@davidross5593]

@@fireguy-id7ky could you ever theorize that lamp to come into existence without a human creating materials to create that lamp to work as it should, let alone a power source without a human mind to light the lamp to make it work as it should? Some perspective for you. You are not believing "God gave us this lamp" without considering a mind creating it, to make have a design and a function. No unbeliever nor you could actually prove there is no God. To do so, you literally have to prove your own non-existence and the non-existence of earth, ironically. So really good luck.

[@stsjs6938]

01:20 "Not everything you read is necessarily factual" best line ever. So how do we determine which parts of the Bible is factual and which are not?

[@theseustoo]

Oh, mate! Don't you know? That book wasn't written by men at all... it was written by GOD himself! (I hope your recognise irony when you see it!) ;)

[@Knifegash]

It's all factual, plain and simple.

[@theseustoo]

@@Knifegash What? The buy-bull? 'Factual'? Surely you jest?! :D

[@Knifegash]

@@theseustoo Better than you have tried to disprove it, every attempt to inspect its assertions end up proving it further. It is historically accurate and proven to be reliable in following bloodlines.

[@gordoncavanaugh8744]

@@theseustoo God wrote in ancient Greek?

[@1906Farnsworth]

4:57 Wrong, members of a set need not have any common characteristics. They can be chosen with complete arbitrariness. 45:42 If God has authority over all the universe, then it would be perfectly possible for mathematics to be different in different places. To assume other wise is to limit God. You assume properties of God on faith then reason from them. It's just faith with more steps.

[@jayceejm]

And there is no reason to believe that mathematics IS different in different places. Have you seen the size of the universe? What you call God limiting God "here" is called structure and order "here". And no believer in God claims that we can believe without an ounce of faith. We accept that that will always be in place and to be honest....I kinda like that God has opted to not to "make it plain". Those who just don't want to "see" can be free to do just that. Don't think you can prove God does not exist so that does leave us both believing something we can't prove.

[@1906Farnsworth]

@@jayceejm Agreed. No evidence about math being different. No evidence about God either. Of course you can't prove that God does not exist. This is a basic element of logic: one can't prove a negative.

[@neutrino78x]

"f God has authority over all the universe, then it would be perfectly possible for mathematics to be different in different places." Yep. We haven't discovered such places yet. Even if we did, God making a different mathematics there would also be evidence that God exists.

[@1906Farnsworth]

@@neutrino78x No, there can be no evidence for the existence of God. Suppose you find evidence for a being of great power. You would need to verify that it was evidence of INFINITE power. How does one differentiate between power that is finite, but so huge that we cannot measure it and power that is truly infinite. Further, how to verify that God is eternal? One would need to wait forever to confirm this.

[@gigimalvassora9682]

the correct title: "believers use fractals to captiously hook the idea of god as truth"

[@ellaguru1523]

Which Bible? There are many versions. None of which were written by the people attributed.

[@didierleonard9936]

You can have 2 books written in différents ways that say or carry the same message.. as in math you can find at least 1000 différents ways to prove the Pythagorean law… hundreds of way to prove that square root of 2 is irrational.. these many versions is not a proof that the proven statement is false… and btw I m atheist…

[@kellanhills1972]

Ummm there is overwhelming proof of many of Paul’s letters that they were actually written by Paul the Apostle. As well as Luke wrote Luke and Acts etc throughout the 66 books. Some books of the Bible are disputed but your assertion of “none” is blatantly false and even would be laughed at by hard core atheists.

[@manuell3505]

I haven't seen any "secret code". If you found a unexplainable structure inside a mathematical representation that is definately not coincidence, that might be the greatest scientific discovery of all time.

[@bobmetcalfe9640]

Needless to say, coming from this crowd - it ain't.😁

[@WeWokeTheGiants]

The secret code is the sacred geometry found in creation. Accidents and coincidence don't create geometrical structures. You need math and a computer to create the advance geometry found in creation.

[@manuell3505]

@@WeWokeTheGiants Aye, waiting...

[@4doorsmoreguns193]

@@WeWokeTheGiants why a "god" and not a computer simulation, it makes way more sense lol

[@couragewolf8796]

@@WeWokeTheGiants You first have to demonstrate creation before asserting anything was created.

[@joseh3564]

"We serve a God who is beautiful and makes beautiful things." AMEN 🙏 and ALLEUIA!!!!

[@scamchan]

Except we still have children born with birth defects.

[@BumpyRyder]

which god is that?

[@gammafishhh51]

God also makes ugly things... and evil things too.

[@DM_21]

Yes and Amen! God is the giver of all good things. The enemy comes to steal, kill, and destroy.

[@ab-zg8pt]

@@gammafishhh51 hush! The devil make things evil ... wait, wasn't the devil made by god? Oh, I guess god works in mysterious ways, it's his plan lol

[@NickFrom1228]

In the mid 1980s I attended a lecture at a university that was given by Dr Richard Voss from IBM. He approached the explanation of fractals in an interesting way. First he discussed brownian motion and stochastic systems then talked about fractals and specifically fractal geometry and its relation to nature. What came out of it was how fractals are perfect for describing nature. We think in 3 dimensions but the fractal dimension of nature is something like 2.3 if I recall. His examples were fascinating but the one in particular that was amazing is the nile river. For thousands of years, the egyptians have recorded the flood stage of the nile river. He took these measurements and assigned them to musical notes. When you listen to these played on a piano, you are certain you are hearing a composed song yet there is a "random" nature to it. I doubt he is Christian but he was demonstrating this perfect tie in between nature and math. I've left out a ton of what he presented but if this isn't the creation of an extremely intelligent being I don't know what would be. There is so much more to fractals than what can be discussed in a reasonable time. Dr Lisle covers the Mandlebrot pretty well but there is soooooo much more and it all points to God. Truly amazing stuff. Back in that day he recommended a book called "The Fractal Geometry of Nature" by Peitgen and Saupe (stretching my memory here) but it was good. A little bit on the technical side to check it out of a library or something if you don't plan to write code to generate fractals.

[@losningen3665]

"belief in God is associated with lower scores on IQ tests"

[@NickFrom1228]

@@losningen3665 Interesting. Also interesting that some of the people scoring highest on the IQ tests believe in God so...

[@losningen3665]

@@NickFrom1228 Yes, but it's a stark reality that individuals with high IQs are often isolated, and it drives them to seek companionship. It's not that they are inherently drawn to religion, but rather, they find themselves in a world that often fails to understand or appreciate their intellect. This isolation can make them more susceptible to grasping for any source of connection, and religion is one of those avenues, though it may not truly resonate with them on a fundamental level. It's frustrating to see so many bright minds driven to this predicament by societal inadequacies.

[@PKerslake1]

Unfortunately I am agnostic. Your anecdote about the Nile river does more to convince me of a divine creator than my research to date. Thank you.

[@peter5.056]

Well, as an Atheist, you're absolutely right. I could never explain this to you.

[@oldrrocr]

but I'd bet he could easily explain to us how he makes money spouting this sh!t.

[@lukpo1997]

You don't have the time, neither the crayons

[@jaclynkeng]

That’s funny I didn’t pay anything to listen to his teaching of a mathematical equation that you curse at…thank you for reminding me math is now racist.

[@nyeebie]

@@oldrrocr I didnt pay to see this

[@ABL_wuz_here]

@@oldrrocr I mean no duh a video that gets views will gets revenue

[@cozmcwillie7897]

This phenomenon was mentioned in 1917 by a French mathematician called Gaston Julia, he published them as the 'Julia Sets': although he could only guess at what they looked like, he never saw them, as modern computers were necessary. From here you could say they were moved fractally by Professor Mandelbrot.

[@sizzleshnizzle9484]

Well actually the mandelbrot set is a map collaboration of the Julia sets. All of the Julia sets can be found within the mandelbrot set somewhere

[@dr.bonniewoodruff1906]

Very well said! That is why knowledge can be shown almost if not instantly for us to have today because of the high-tech....PC etc.

[@birdsflowers2289]

@@dr.bonniewoodruff1906 I found this very interesting. As an artist I utilize this all the time in less intricate ways. I was always poor at math. Imagine my shock when an adult Ed. Teacher observed that I had algebraic thinking in my designs. This floored me because I was merely told I was "hopeless" in grade school and they sort of gave up on me. I was never trained as an artist, but discovered I enjoyed early American puzzle purse paper designs , origami and scherrenschnitte...and Bible study.

[@dr.bonniewoodruff1906]

​@@birdsflowers2289 I was told the same, and God put me into a desire... directing me towards the sciences of outer space, latest discoveries, and music by the age of 2-3 years old and the Bible, witnessing the Hand of God through my life starting by the age of three. Then, from my birth 1940... so many miracles in my life... with me still pursuing my studies in all these areas, especially in music until 2005, where God had me write, "God's Creative Design on the Piano (Music, using the Spiritual application with God's number system, and God's color system). By then, knowing above PhD in music theory, adding the rest blew my mind, but all in the right direction... completing the picture. He is doing that with you, too. Currently God has me writing a fictional story, because it is real through my life called, "Sky Pilot Mystery Series or a Novel. I hope to finish it this year 2022. Thank for your message to me. God bless you!

[@birdsflowers2289]

@@dr.bonniewoodruff1906 Blessings to you for sharing with me 🥰

[@the_guy9946]

Havent even got 10 min in and through reading the comments i can already understand this guys main argument. I strongly recommend everyone of all religious beliefs to take a philosophy/ philo. Of religion class. The main theological argument this guy is trying to make for the existence of a monotheistic god is the teleological argument. Essentially the idea that there are too many specific details and coincidences in our natural world, therefore there must be a purpose for them and an intelligent god that created them. Where he sees complex natural phenomenon as evidence of god we see it as simply the complexity of nature. I think its rather presumptuous to assume our lack of understanding of nature is evidence that god is real. Humanity in the past explained the day night cycle by saying gods were pulling the ball of fire in the sky. How can we know we are not in the same predicament? Just because the majority of our reality is not known to use doesnt mean an all powerful being exists in the metaphysical plane. Additionally i knew this argument for god would be absolutely irrelevant when he dismissed evolution at the beginning. Buddy let me explain something. We know evolution is real through observation of the physical world. We literally see the genes evolving through generations and beneficial traits become more prominent. We have done multiple studies on insects and watched advantageous traits become adopted by the entire population. To say thats not real because god means you need to prove god’s existence and faith is not a good enough excuse neither is the teleological argument.

[@nathanhimmerich2]

We see patterns and some people assume it means things were created to derive patterns, but we also see patterns in Conway's game of Life. Set some simple rules in this game, chaos emerges, and patterns emerge as well. This doesn't speak to creation, it speaks to the random nature of existence, and the emergence of patterns in chaos. The essential false premise is 'hidden code' using the mandelbrot set as an example. They do not understand how so much complexity can be found in a relatively simple set, but to assume there is a hidden mechanism is literally not understanding the basic premise of the mandelbrot set. There is no hidden mechanism, the set is clearly defined, good math. There is no wibbly wobbly space for hidden math, it's exactly what it is. There is no room for God, factually so, if God is hidden mechanisms in math as this suggests.

[@ethancollinsworth3927]

I’m a christian and yet i still know that there is no proof of god, that’s why we have faith, if god was proven for fact then everyone would believe him. You can’t prove him. Have faith in god.

[@doity]

@@ethancollinsworth3927 so you let something that has no evidence dictate how to live your life? Would you follow Christianity if you were born as a Muslim?

[@ethancollinsworth3927]

@@doity That’s a good question that i don’t know the answer to. But you let things you don’t know dictate your life everyday. You don’t know that god ISNT real and you let that dictate your life (seeing as you’re on a comment section about it)

[@nathanhimmerich2]

@@ethancollinsworth3927 We see patterns and some people assume it means the world was created, but it only speaks to the random nature of existence, and the emergence of patterns in chaos. They do not understand how so much complexity can be found in a relatively simple set like the mandelbrot, but to assume there is a hidden mechanism is literally not understanding the basic premise of sets such as the mandelbrot. There is no hidden mechanism, the set is clearly defined, and the patterns emerge. There is no wibbly wobbly space for hidden math, it's exactly what it is.

[@chrisengland5523]

As an atheist, I agree with the video title. No need to look at the video. There are lots of things that atheists can't explain. In fact, nobody else can explain them either but that doesn't mean that "God did it." It just means WE DON'T KNOW.

[@owen044]

Well you obviously don't know the basis of theology then

[@chrisengland5523]

@@owen044 Well, I know enough about theology to realise that it's no more relevant than any other type of fairy tale. And frankly, the more I find out about it, the more ridiculous is appears. It has ZERO relevance in the 21st century. I don't know what religion or church you belong to, but you've been conned: "Our's is the one and only true religion and all the others are rubbish." Yeah right.

[@kristiefish7041]

AMAZING. All glory belongs to our God!

[@kingjc44103]

Thor?

[@kingjc44103]

@@midlander4 No...no... it's gotta be Posiden... she is a fish after all. 🙄😏

[@craigthompson3866]

I got a question who your referring to Thor Poseidon Shiva Vishnu Horus Brahma Hades Zeus Jupiter Wotan

[@taramarielmt]

This is an impressive illustration of Olympic level mental gymnastics

[@GodArmy7711]

Grow up Tara, be an adult. Stop browsing content you care nothing for and learn to possibly use your time more wisely. You can be more than an internet troll if you simply put your mind to it. I believe in you Tara, you can do it! 🙂

[@davidm1187]

I don't really go around calling myself an athiest, but that first minute is really depressing that a grown adult thinks like that

[@ab-zg8pt]

What do you expect from people believing in something they can't see or prove lol

[@FlapjackR]

Well, to others it may be "depressing" that you may never know God's truth or feel the warmth of his love.

[@thedevilsadvocate5210]

What are you talking about you just plug some numbers into the formula and you can feel God’s warm love.

[@Sundayschoolnetwork]

Truly fascinating! Romans 1:20-22 comes to mind for atheist scientists, "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts..."

[@artemisnite]

HIS eternal blah, blah... How convenient for the patriarchy that gawd just happens to be THREE MALES. 🤣 And... Crusades, Inquisitions, witch hunts, tRUMPISM... Don't EVEN talk to me about "DARK HEARTS."

[@Sundayschoolnetwork]

@@artemisnite God created man AND woman in His image. Furthermore, Jesus included women in his earthly ministry. And he came to earth because of those sins you mentioned. None are righteous. We need a Savior.

[@houtbay9]

Gods *invisible* qualities .... can be clearly seen.... contradiction right there?

[@houtbay9]

@@mmiller5359 What a clumsy, jealous, sadistic, petty, and cruel thug this so-called lord is

[@lilblackduc7312]

@@mmiller5359 3 seconds after you die, discuss it with the Almighty. (Good luck with that ;-)

[@takoyakilover8713]

I was born in a very religious family; I also was very religious when I was younger. But as I grew older, I realized these were just fake hopes because we were afraid of "after death". No valid proof until now, not even this video.

[@Leonardokite]

Sorry for your deception. I pray that you will know the way, the truth, and the life before it is too late.

[@j.r.mocksly5996]

I'm sure you grew older in a public school, where they ban any talk of God or faith and indoctrinate you with scientism: the masquerading of "science" as a religion which cannot be questioned. And in this "safe space" they trotted out controlled straw-men to demonstrate to your impressionable mind: Look! What they are saying is ridiculous and false! See we have sciiieeennncceee!!!! A science that cannot be either proven or disproven and serves as a poor substitute for faith, which is not *supposed* to be proven, while science actually is. Evolution is not anywhere near something like Boyle's law, the laws of thermodynamics, etc. It's a hypothesis with no null hypothesis, making it invalid scientifically.

[@King_Flippy_Nips]

theres plenty of evidence of after death, it has been proven that some people that have died in hospital and brought back can still see and hear what is happening in the hospital room while they were dead, also there have been cases of children and reincarnation where children of a very young age(under 8) have known names, places and happenings of things that occurred in their past life, also time does not move forward, it exists all at once and we only perceive it as moving forward, physicists agree on this, so when you die you can be outside of time as we know it since you are no longer trapped by your body and no longer perceiving it as flowing forward.

[@NWard1210]

Exactly - and religious people forget that it's not down to us to disprove the existence of anything. They're the ones making the claim that there is something, so it's down to them to prove it using valid, scientific, repeatable methods (which they've never been able to do).

[@WinnytheWoo]

You only need faith

[@MCWUKGaming]

The Mandelbrot set is pretty interesting, but it only really demonstrates maths, and not God

[@alfazehsas]

🤦🏻‍♀️

[@lerch60]

Exactly. Amazing stuff. Evidence for God? No.

[@romeomk510]

And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. - 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

[@Drawoon]

As an atheist, I can explain this just fine: Math starts at a series of simple rules, and the rest naturally follows through logic. When you take a simple ruleset and apply it to a field like numbers, patterns tend to emerge. Take prime numbers for example. A number is prime if it's not divisible by any whole numbers except for 1 and itself. When you look at the prime numbers, 2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,... you might notice that after 2,3 there are never 2 prime numbers in a row. There is always at least one number between two prime numbers. This is a pattern, yet it's not immediately obvious why it's there. Nothing in the rules says that 2,3 can be the only couple. If you look deeper into it though, you might find that among two consecutive numbers there is always one odd number and one even number. Furthermore the only even number that can be prime is the one that's divisible by 2 and 1, which is 2. Now the pattern is explained. That explanation was fairly simple to find, but you can imagine there are patterns that are much harder to explain. In some cases mathematicians can spend their whole careers trying to find one and still falling short. Just because we can't find an explanation, that doesn't mean there isn't one. We still find new solutions to old problems relatively often. Also, when you map a complex enough function onto 2d space, it's gonna make pretty pictures. It's gonna make 2d patterns, and our brains like 2d patterns because they're easier to process than random noise. The mandelbrot set is really interesting, and the visuals we can make with it are truly stunning, but I personally wouldn't go looking for higher meaning in it.

[@infiniLor]

Whoosh.

[@Drawoon]

@@infiniLor Wait, what did I miss? None of this needs to be explained with some deity.

[@vijaykumarjha7822]

@@Drawoon you didn't missed anything, but the video was so wrong that it was a joke

[@Drawoon]

@@vijaykumarjha7822 ahh. nice.

[@elu9189]

"who created numbers?" We don't know if they were "created" in any sense of the word. But your argument is basically "where did this come from? You don't know? Therefore God." Which isn't an argument. Not knowing is a million times better than making up a God to explain mysteries.

[@franciegwin]

This is amazing......I recognized it as a fractal but I had no idea where they came from.

[@IMPOSING-NOOB2233]

Generating a fractal from an equation doesn't prove the existence of God though?

[@outofthebox7]

I think functional patterns are repeated designs that serve a purpose and a purpose proves there's a cause behind it. A purpose, manifested through functional patterns, can exist through a cause. That cause has a Mind, that Mind we call God. No?

[@heatherweiss7507]

Plasma intelligence

[@outofthebox7]

@@heatherweiss7507 What about it?

[@amypope9098]

U believe the Big Bang theory? (Serious question)

[@madmartinline6]

Thing is, if an open minded scientist was given proof that God existed he would accept the proof without question. On the other hand, if a Christian was given absolute proof that God didn't exist, they would completely dismiss the proof. It has been said a million times before but the bible is not a scientific journal.

[@jerrysolomon]

There will never be the sort of proof you imagine for or against God's existence. Science and Christianity are both based on faith. And they are not in conflict with one another. We are left having to use our reason to decide. Personally, I find the existence of God to be much more reasonable than the alternative.

[@MrJoehayter]

Francis Schaefer's "The God Who is There", and Michael Heiser's "The Unseen Realm" are two books that do thoroughly answer and solve the issues posed in this thread. Read or audiobook The Unseen Realm first to thoroughly understand that the Bible was written for us, and not to us. Heiser's PhD in ancient Semitic languages really sold me on taking the time to go through his book, then over the years I went through it 8 more times because it is just that good. Helping me to understand the reality and brevity of my disposition, that I know nothing as I ought to know and yet I get to be known by His knowledge. I think Paul was agnostic, save the knowledge of God.

[@wspek]

How does Heiser's "Unseen Realm" compare to his "Demons"? For me the latter was highly technical and I kinda gave up. Maybe too soon.

[@losningen3665]

"belief in God is associated with lower scores on IQ tests"

[@ChannelMath]

I wonder what an atheist like Wigner would say to this misuse of his words? Of course, you could just look it up since he obviously addressed the religious take on these particular thoughts of his. However, to nobody's surprise, you seem to have not seen his replies, or maybe omitted them on purpose. You could also actually study how the math creates these shapes, so that they become no more mysterious than the fact that 2+2=4. But you won't do that either, because, as we all know, you're not really interested in learning anything here

[@ralphpierroii4626]

The question is not the how, but the why. Math itself is a problem for those with a viewpoint that claims the universe happened randomly. Why would all these rules for how things work be in place to govern literally everything that exists? Why can nothing exist outside of those rules? Not to mention the many holes in any version of macro evolution- if we find a chihuahua and a great dane, fossilized in 10000 years, and dogs have been extinct for long enough that general knowledge of them has passed away, what would such a theory suggest was the reason for their extreme differences? Could a theory emerge that the older chihuahua bones are proof of a canine that evolved from a rat, seeing as they have so many similarities? “Then, as the animals adapted to their environment, and became more successful within their biosphere, they evolved, growing larger and better adapted, hence the much later date of the great dane fossil.” Sound familiar? This thought process a gross oversimplification of reality, based on a theory of what could have happened, if everything in the universe “just happens”, in a way that we can relatively easily explain- but, we have to ignore the faults in our logic, to hold to these theories.

[@spinosaurusstriker]

@@ralphpierroii4626 your argument started to decay when you claimed that most people believe the universe was created randombly, nobody who believes in the big bang of other theories believes that, at least i, believe that the origin of the universe as a whole is unknown, but the universe as we know it works the way it does because of the law of physics, nothing random, now if you want to believe that the laws of physics are made by a god then thats on you to prove.

[@spinosaurusstriker]

@@ralphpierroii4626 And also you misunderstand evolution greatly, you assume that every scientist would claim that every species was a succefull one, but you can clearly see various examples of species that scientist pointed out being too specialized to survive and explain why they don't exist anymore, if they found fossils of dogs they would point inmediatly that all of them belong in the same family, it would just be a mistery on why they were too diversified and some looked malnourish until its discovered one with a collar, then the articifial breeding would be speculated, because you know, evidence its important.

[@lauraandrews1676]

@@spinosaurusstriker so where do the laws of physics come from? They are so precise and ordered that you can build skyscrapers and massive airplanes with the confidence that those laws will remain constant. Why?

[@spinosaurusstriker]

@@lauraandrews1676 you are seeing things in the wrong order , a snowflake looks the way it looks because of how the molecules of water work , the molecules aren't working that way to make the snowflake ,and the laws remain constant because there is anything to suggest they would need to change ,at least in normal circumstances. If you want to know were do the laws of physics come from ,its unknown at least for me but that doesn't mean you can automatically claim to be the result of whatever whitout proof ,just like you wouldn't believe a man saying that George bush lives in his house whitout anything to back it up , the task is to prove god first ,then we can use it to explain things .

[@voidzennullspace]

As a mathematician and an artist, I thoroughly enjoyed this video

[@technodrone313]

Hell yeah!!! Satan gave us some great math!!

[@voidzennullspace]

@@technodrone313 Huh?

[@technodrone313]

@@voidzennullspace Satan created fractals duh. What this guy is talking about in the video. HELL YEAH!!

[@voidzennullspace]

@@technodrone313 Okay

[@hacerclic1020]

Thanks for this great presentation! It reminds me again how excited I was to learn about fractals and the Mandelbrot set back in the 80s. One of the first computer programs I wrote was to graph the Mandelbrot set. I spent hours zooming in and exploring the fascinating details. But we need to have a talk about Romanesco broccoli. It is actually wonderful when prepared correctly.

[@infiniLor]

Broccoli can be delicious!! 😉

[@billmount6704]

Yes, if this guy hadn't already totally blown his credibility, his comment about the broccoli would've sunk him.

[@infiniLor]

@@billmount6704 oh, ok, wow.

[@billmount6704]

@@infiniLor He’s babbling total nonsense about both the nature of reality and the desirability of Romanesco broccoli. He’s completely unworthy of attention.

[@notmyworld44]

Yes, but does it stink like the regular kind does?

[@TotalSkeptic]

Wow, less than a minute in and his dad tells him we don't believe in dinosaurs, we believe in the bible. I guess facts aren't necessary in order to be the founder of a biblical science institute either.

[@dinomitous9365]

"We need to Filter it through God's Word" Oh, so you Admit that the Bible is Wrong? Got it!

[@davidfarrar2454]

"The science book told me lies" What irony!

[@ArcherMVMaster]

While using science for investigating 😂

[@j.r.mocksly5996]

@@ArcherMVMaster So everything called science in human history was factually correct? Like when science said flies spontaneously spawn, lead is perfectly safe, asbestos is perfectly safe, making hats with mercury is fine.... need I go on? There's good science & scientists and bad "science" and "scientists" that only care about upholding the orthodoxy of the day and are immune to facts or the scientific method itself, if it dares defy them!

[@dr.bonniewoodruff1906]

True!

[@CashJohnston]

Just “filter” out the stuff that doesn’t fit

[@PInk77W1]

“I always thought I would be arrested and jailed for life, but now I realize I am not worthy of such a grace” St John Vianney

[@jasonspades5628]

That's nonsensical. This is what happens when people value the way something sounds instead of its academic justification

[@gard7662]

@@jasonspades5628 I think he just means that for every moment of our existence we are being grossly overpaid, no matter what that existence happens to be.

[@johnjeffreys6440]

God spoke about dinosaurs to Job.

[@heftymagic4814]

@The Sinful Bastard who are u talking to lol

[@blackadam6445]

@@johnjeffreys6440 think about what you just said. At the time of Job… NO MAN would have any clue what a dinosaur was because we didn’t start to discover fossils of said creatures until thousands of years later. Because according to established timelines, dinosaurs and man never coexisted. People from Jobs time could not have had ANY idea what a dinosaur is. Because they are separated from the nearest one by about a million years. Someone’s lying

[@debbieforsyth2015]

TRUTH and Wisdom

[@jwhitman2447]

truth and "wisdom" are subjective.

[@debbieforsyth2015]

@jwhitman2447 Everything is subjective but in this regard the facts about the science of this matter proves Wisdom and truth of a Creator.

[@ultraderek]

Simulation theory is becoming more popular because humanity is now in a state where we can imagine it being true. We are now creating virtual worlds, virtual systems, simulated models of the world, and simulated origins of life models. All of these simulations needed a creator to make them. As a Christian who believes in special creation. I think we need to embrace special creation as a type of simulation but with an emphasis that the creation can’t be greater than the creator.

[@Captain-Cosmo]

Was your creator also a creation?

[@ultraderek]

@@Captain-Cosmo most likely not.

[@Captain-Cosmo]

@@ultraderek How did you determine that probability?

[@ultraderek]

@@Captain-Cosmo 1) God is eternal. No beginning no end. Created things have a beginning. 2) Lets say creating an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal being was possible. It would be created by an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal being. Thus, it would be redundant and unnecessary.

[@didierleonard9936]

@@ultraderek take the game of life of Conway… it can generate itself with its basic rules, infinitely. This works like a simulation of a simulation .. to ever… with no beginning and no end…. And still only a basic rule. And no god

[@mikeaveli2993]

With or without the aspect of religion this could be the best video on the Mandelbrot set I've ever seen. And I've seen a few. Very good job explaining the details in an easy to understand way.

[@erkl8823]

Yeah I don't think it's fair to tie it to a particular religion, but the concept of The Creator is intricately intertwined *into* it.

[@dongclee]

I agree. Though I am not a religious person, I enjoyed the presentation very much. I have to say that his was the best presentation I have ever watched on Mandelbrot set.

[@RMF49]

There’s one where the Mandelbrot set actually computes pi that’s cool.

[@RMF49]

@Juan Ramon Silva Parra Yes especially such a tiny formula.

[@Valkonnen]

The guy is trying to negate what we can actually see in the gradual progression of evolution and adaptation. His religion has made him delusional and sick from fear . These people cannot be trusted in their decision making. It's sad that people need to believe in something so badly, and we have tens of thousand s of completely different religions, yet they are each so limited.

[@OG_Sanctio]

Been fascinated by fractals since I was in high school. Not to say I did well in math class but this was one of my first instincts as I grew to understand the meaning of what I was seeing. A thought really well explained by this man.

[@technodrone313]

trying to tie it into some made up sky god is really well explained?

[@supermonkeyball7488]

@@technodrone313 "Not to say I did well in math class" explains it. If you can only understand math and the natural world through some incomprehensible, mysterious force, then you don't actually understand it. It's closer to a lack of an explanation since you can't explain how it actually happened, just that god "made it happen."

[@OG_Sanctio]

@@supermonkeyball7488 ITS ALL JUST STRINGS MAAANNN

[@CTimmerman]

@@OG_Sanctio Strings, branes, tubes... All forms of Pasta.

[@OG_Sanctio]

@@CTimmerman May the sauce be with you

[@jimmykudo5836]

Amazing lecture. He explained the concept of Vedanta without even realizing it, and that's genius.

[@Playitalready]

Well all math came from Vedas. but I'm curious to know what he said that explained the concept of Vedanta?

[@atharv-gautam]

​@@Playitalready BS.

[@Playitalready]

​@@atharv-gautamEinstein quotes disagree with you, as does the tons of detail, sources, & evidence I've found that proves my last comment, & how all the major religions, sciences, proven prophecy, etc. directly or indirectly came from the 5 Vedas, which I show in my book & unfinished videos. I'd provide them here, if you sounded more nice & open minded, & if youtube's AI stopped removing the wrong comments. Just stay tuned. Vedas even correctly predicted that their spiritual, merit based Varna system would get distorted into a birth based system.

[@DIFFbros]

I’ve seen this discussion before. Unfortunately the entire thing is built on a false premise. The Mandelbrot set is not infinite complexity built from a finite equation, but rather it is infinite complexity from an infinite equation. The set is created from multiple iterations on a single simple equation. The more you iterate the equation the more complex it is. We can never actually have an infinitely complex set because we can never actually iterate the equation infinite times.

[@landsgevaer]

Norman Wildberger will agree with this.

[@ruprecht9997]

All hail the holy power of recursion.

[@wilmafudd9293]

ARE YOU THE PONYTAIL GUY FROM GOODWILL HUNTING?

[@hudibrad]

@@wilmafudd9293 why are you yelling?

[@wilmafudd9293]

@@hudibrad YOU CAN NOT YELL ON A COMPUTER.

[@thedoanzone]

I've never been impressed that graphs made from equations can be beautiful and therefore there must be a God. Also, the idea that God thinks mathematically is an assumption. Bible never mentions anything like that. Also, what if my Muslim friend said the Mandelbrot set is evidence for Allah? There are so many holes in this guy's proofs they can only convince someone who is already a believer. Ugh

[@tsmith3286]

Call “him” what you will, this is a very good reason for the assumption of a creator.

[@wushupants]

What makes you think God doesn't work mathematically? The bible is FILLED with numeric symbolism and mathematical elements. If you're speaking from a strictly subjective point of view you'll never understand the complexity of the bible even in the math hidden in the Hebrew characters of the first 5 books. The more you know! 🌈

[@thedoanzone]

@@tsmith3286 not to me. Sorry it just doesn't impress me as an argument at all. I know it does to a lot of people but I just don't get it.

[@tsmith3286]

@@thedoanzone Is there anything that would make you question as to how we got here and to possibley wonder if there was some type of a creator? Sincere question.

[@BeardedBarley1]

Did you know that one of the books of the Bible is actually called...wait for it...”NUMBERS”!? Hahahaha! Smile. Also, all you need to do is read Job, especially the part where God questions him about his knowledge, asking him if it is greater than His Knowledge by sh**ting Job a series of questions he couldn’t possibly answer then. This isn’t even to mention the calendar He created involving specific days He works through tirelessly every year since creation in order to reach and teach people about His Love for them.

[@solarmax11]

The very first wonder I could remember is about astronomy. This was before I was put in school or taught any religion. Everything we see are all so beautiful. And then there's music....

[@dr.bonniewoodruff1906]

Go to KZbin and see the title, God's Creative Design on the piano.

[@rebeccaw68]

Yes! I am amazed by polyphonic overtones in one note. I did not know I until experimented with my voice that I could make several sounds simultaneously because a tone is not simply one sound. Even that fascinates me!

[@dr.bonniewoodruff1906]

@@rebeccaw68 The piano note is 'One' tone. The string instrument like violin is more levels of sound. The voice is the ultimate levels of sound more capable then any instrument producing a tone. That is why I love to add the string instrument sound with the piano sound on a digital keyboard, and then if you sing with that combination, that is the ultimate... combining all.

[@rebeccaw68]

@@dr.bonniewoodruff1906 So, so beautiful.

[@thisis_batcountry]

and then there’s the Beatles

[@laughingpanda4395]

Jason: "science proves creation theory." 98% of scientists: "I'm an atheist." Man made math proves the existence of god? Oh ffs...

[@JamesJones-zt2yx]

Listening to this I can't help thinking of the Kronecker quote: "God created the integers. All else is the work of man."

[@c.t.hchannel7260]

So it means that the universe is designed as a never-ending formula that was created by God the creator. The universe is so huge which is proven already by scientists. If they keep on looking it gets bigger and farther, like what is in this video. It's a really fascinating and well-explained video.

[@diemyfriend]

No it doesn't. Universe can't be created, It always existed. If something is infinite it can't have the beginning or the end, hence its impossible that something existed before it (because there is no before in this context) . Pretty simple logic. If you insert the need of the creator, you are creating a paradox. Because creator needs to start randomly existing, or be created, but then that creator has a creator and so on. Unless you wanna say that there is an infinite number of creators in which case you aren't Christian.

[@caviestcaveman8691]

@@diemyfriend yep who created the creator then this simple question christians can't answer I love it when logic breaks them down I want to believe but just don't see good evidence

[@diemyfriend]

@@caviestcaveman8691 the most reasonable way for me is Pantheism. Either everyone and everything is god (all as one) or nothing is. Seems like two most plausible answers. But its okay to say "I don't know". Something preacher can't say out loud.

[@lordfin6211]

@@diemyfriend but the Universe has a beginning tho, the Big Bang Theory yeah?

[@diemyfriend]

@@lordfin6211 have you ever read anything about that theory? Your question suggests that you didn't.

[@cleverdickrick]

It's fun vaguely declaring that science confirms biblical creation. With that kind of mental gymnastics you could just as easily make much more interesting declarations. Such as, "Science confirms the story of Harry Potter."

[@bjbell52]

LOL- maybe people should read the Bible and then read a scientific book about how the earth came to be. The Bible claims that god created the earth and then later created the sun. We KNOW that's not true, how can believers ignore that fact ?

[@davidcobb3166]

@@bjbell52 the heavens and the earth were both created in verse one. There are plenty of terrestrial bodies not lit by the stars they orbit. Let there be light references the placement of our perfect orbit. Separating light and day refers to the planets rotation. Our orbit, day and furthermore, the "vaults that hold the seas" were not part of earth when it first formed. Earth was a very different planet before the event that created the moon. I strongly disagree with this speaker regarding his dismissal of evolution and unfortunately checked out quickly but wanted to sincerely answer your question. There is no need to dismiss scientific theories. More so than ever in modern science it is apparent we are observing God's work.

[@silver6054]

@@davidcobb3166 Think of the mental gymnastics you go through to arrive at this explanation. Now look at another sacred book from a belief you disagree with. Would you be willing to expend the same amount of effort to show "Yes, that could be right"

[@neutrino78x]

well James unless you show me science that OBJECTIVELY SHOWS IT TO BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THERE TO BE A HIGHER POWER.....I'm going to go with there being one, since it's unknowable, and I see lots of evidence all around me. All I have to do is look up at night and I see lots of evidence. I know it's not scientific evidence, it doesn't have to be as long as it's not in conflict with known science, which it is not. Now this guy (in the video) might be a fundamentalist who thinks the world was created in 7 days etc. I obviously wouldn't agree with that. But I agree with him that there is a God out there in some form.

[@neutrino78x]

@@bjbell52 "The Bible claims that god created the earth and then later created the sun. We KNOW that's not true, how can believers ignore that fact ?" Because what they're actually interpreting it as is simply that God wrote the laws of physics and then the Earth and Sun and everything else came to be in the manner in which science understands it. The Bible actually doesn't make the claim you say it does; that's all allegory. Because the Bible is a spiritual book not a science book. Now, mind you, I'm a Deist. I have not been baptized and I don't "believe" in any organized religion. I do think there is a God out there and I do think it wrote the laws of physics with the intention that at least one intelligent species would evolve. But most educated people who subscribe to Christianity interpret it in a way that's compatible with science.

[@SilentD1]

I love how creationists say "science cant explain this" Our explanation: "God made it". Thats not an explanation. That is a statement without evidence.

[@ampersand7443]

You don't know the answer so it's my turn to say things

[@SilentD1]

@@ampersand7443 but you aint saying things that provide answers. Its just like.. Science cant explain it, so it must be god? Then little joe asks, "but how".. Shhhh little joe, dont ask questions.

[@ampersand7443]

@@SilentD1 yeah I agree with you fully. The God of the gaps argument is cheap

[@Software.Engineer]

Lol the reason they say science can't explain creation of the universe is because it literally is impossible because it is outside the realm of science. Science is great until you take away the foundations it sits on and prior to creation you can't use science. So yes you can say God made it and you can also say science can never explain it and both be true. You are asking for an explanation in a scientific form when the explanation is beyond science lmao, pick your tools wisely

[@SilentD1]

@@Software.Engineer No that is not what Im asking. His claim. Science cant explain it therefore Its god. That is a cheap clickbaity title, and it provides no value what so ever. Its just bla bla bla.

[@Adogsmate4267]

If you're filtering what you see and hear to suit yourself, you're deceiving yourself, this dude and his father are classic cases.

[@dustinmalpass]

Yeah, this is the same logic that leads people to nitpicking the Bible &/or science. It usually leads to some pretty freaky stuff.

[@giogarcia4002]

So what do you believe in besides criticizing others?

[@WatchingUntiltheEnd]

a statement without a counter.

[@MyouKyuubi]

@@giogarcia4002 Why does it matter what his beliefs are? And also, critique isn't a belief, it's a verb and a noun. xD

[@billbrooks8487]

Fractals and the Mandelbrot set are examples of pure beauty in math. I ignored the religious nonsense. No, please don't ignore objective realities like evolution to focus on non-existent deities like this man did.

[@muddinmann]

Awfully bold statement from complete ignorance. If you evolutionists cannot prove where life came from your argument is noll and void. Get back to me when you figure it out. P.S.-we already know! The more science tries to disprove God, the more evidence that is found that proves the Bible.

[@althe4564]

​@@muddinmann 👏🏾👏🏾

[@danielm593]

So… “ Not everything you read is factual?” Isn’t that kind of ironic to say from someone who doesn’t believe science but believes the Bible instead 🤔? To each his own, but let’s be fair and consistent

[@gettygarrettable]

No, because the bible can fall into the category of things that ARE factual, provided by his statement. Now if he said: "everything you read is not factual", then that would make sense. Also the bible and science are not mutually exclusive. Many times the bible predates scientific discovery and then other times science supports the bible.

[@danielm593]

@@gettygarrettable 👌

[@1man1year150]

Imagine still believing a book that's been rewritten countless times and calling all of science wrong... wow

[@aaronthetree3758]

Well science must be proven, and God cant be, so God always comes out on top

[@aaronthetree3758]

did you delete a message? i got ping for it

[@Zer0ne-Infinite]

Never will I understand how Christians can look at something and completely ignore it at the same time. It's like they're not hearing themselves speaking

[@RobobinAnne]

Never will I understand how non-Christians can look at something and completely ignore it at the same time. It's like they're not listening because they refuse to hear anything that refers to God. Their pride and arrogance has hardened them against him and closed their mind. "Pride leads to disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom." Prov. 11:2 "Mean-spirited slander is heartless; quiet discretion accompanies good sense." Prov. 11:12

[@Zer0ne-Infinite]

@@RobobinAnne touche

[@Subangelis]

@@RobobinAnne quotes the Bible proudly, and with arrogance as if that's the only answer.

[@jayceejm]

No arrogance present when it is true. When Usain Bolt said "I am the fastest man alive" He was. No one would say "how arrogant" as it was just a statement of fact. If you believed Justin Gatlin was faster, Usain would SOUND arrogant but it would never make it so just because it is what you believe.

[@Zer0ne-Infinite]

@@jayceejm yeah yeah different believes we will never understand each other. You do what you need to do to get by in life

[@pjc0n]

"Atheists cannot explain this secret code sen in creation" (Except if you have ever seen any video from Numberphile at all and/or have experienced high school maths)

[@paulbishop940]

To be honest the maths is way beyond me, but it does seem to reflect the macro and micro scale of everything around us and within us. Both outward into the Universe and inward into the hidden micro world. Truly fascinating. To see a world in a grain of sand and heaven in a flower as Blake said.

[@normpeplow3813]

I agree. These things boggle my mind.

[@regarrzo]

His definition of a set is not correct and he even makes notational errors squaring numbers. This guy has no idea of what he is talking about.

[@garymcsullea7330]

Someone has taken a very long bow to come to this conclusion.

[@BumpyRyder]

confirmation bias...

[@mr88cet]

What I thought the weirdest claim here was that clearly humans didn’t invent Mandelbrot set, because Mandelbrot himself was surprised by its beauty and complexity. Therefore, it must have been invented by God. First of all, “I don’t know, therefore God” doesn’t make logical sense. There’s nothing wrong with stopping at “I don’t know.” More importantly though, there’s nothing surprising about people’s inventions proving far more interesting and/or far more beautiful than they expected. Chefs (“cheves”? 🤪) are often surprised by how tantalizingly delicious a certain combination of foods and spices actually turns out to be. Similarly, composers are sometimes surprised by just how compelling a certain chord progression, or melody, turns out to be. These discoveries are appropriately rare, yes, but hardly unheard of. If you want to attribute these sorts of amazingly insightful discoveries to Divine Inspiration, then fine, go ahead. Nevertheless, the results are indistinguishable from a combination of skill, excellent luck, and elaborating well upon such discoveries. And as for the Mandelbrot set’s beauty, it appeals to us just because humans are evolved to find this sort of intricacies - like the winding of river valleys - beautiful. “People” from other planets may not. Other comparatively intelligent creatures on Earth may not either. Well heck, not even all humans find it beautiful! Some find the “infinite zooms” tedious, or even outright boring!

[@wushupants]

Conversely, I would say that there certainly *IS* a problem with stopping at "I don't know". God tells one of His prophets in the bible "my people die for lack of knowledge". Ignorance is not bliss, unlike most think... especially when considering the spiritual realm. When discussing all things God and our daily struggle between righteousness and corruption, we also have to acknowledge the devil by definition. And if there is one being in all of existence that wouldn't want us to know more about God, creation, math, science, and our true identity as God's children (which put us in a place above the devil) it would be him. So it is merely logical to study the subject with the full brunt of the spiritual realm and the laws that were already here before the human mind ever was, since we are just discovering it all.

[@scamchan]

@@wushupants Evidence for spiritual anything please

[@wushupants]

@@scamchan Try this.... Invest in infrared and thermal technology, or anything that detects paranormal activity or activity happening in other frequencies and you'll be pleasantly surprised. Also, I would recommend going to places like Nigeria, Uganda (technically many African nations), India and other locations were all kinds of supernatural events take place almost on the daily due to all the witchcraft and paganism. People have been seen levitating, one person able to easily repel 20 men pining him or her down and send them flying like 30 feet away, people being cursed to die the next day and coming up dead next morning, people being transformed into animals, inanimate objects, etc. Conversely, you should go in search of ministries that have healing giftings on behalf of Yeshua/Jesus and just enjoy what God can do supernaturally. There's plenty of evidence... the problem is we don't talk about it often in the western world since the secular corporations and powerful elite are more busy keeping us distracted with materialism, intellectualism, humanism for their profit, and more often than not ignore the spiritual realm altogether. That's why we are so weak in that area while other nations aren't.

[@scamchan]

@@wushupants "India and other locations where all kinds of supernatural events take place almost on the daily due to all the witchcraft and paganism. " If any of that were valid and factual you would think it would dominate the world over. But at the same time these are the same places for the most gullible people to be taken in by such scams and schemes. One healer over there is making some sort of "medicine" made with gasoline that he sells to the poor for profit. Why would I begin to think any of that crap originating from there has any grain of truth to it? When one documents such activity it always comes up to be revealed as a scam. "There's plenty of evidence." There is plenty of documentation exposing such scams lets hope you are not one of them selling such crap as being valid. " ignore the spiritual realm altogether" Zero evidence to prove any such realm at all.

[@wushupants]

@@scamchan Oh no worries... it's easy to spot the scams. A good African that's lived in villages were real witchcraft is practiced can spot the scammers in a snap. And sorry to disappoint but there's definitely evidence. As I said, you can perceive it in frequencies that can't be detected by our natural senses, _and_ there's relics that have recorded supernatural events from centuries and millennia ago as well.

[@mistiroberts1576]

I'm only 3:47 into this and its already awesome

[@noelwbray]

I hope everyone who watches this video watches it all the way through to the very end before drawing conclusions because Dr. Jason Lisle's logic is very sound, very sound indeed. He also quotes people who believe in naturalistic processes have to say about math and such. So I say once again, before you draw conclusions about this video, please watch it all the way through.

[@carlosbecerril3317]

His logic is not sound. Not at all 😂😂😂

[@Stoudtski]

It's like discovering the concept of infinity and just going "it's God" I'm a christian but this is pretty bad "evidence" for God

[@aguyontheinternet8436]

yeah as a mathematician I watched the whole thing through. Very unconvincing, you actually start to see it as deceiving once you understand axioms.