Post by Radrook Admin on Dec 8, 2023 16:27:52 GMT -5
Fallacy of Inconsistency: an Atheist Example
I was recently watching a video in reference to determining what signal from space can be deemed as originating from an intelligent source. The video goes on to explain that there are many signals that are detected which are caused by the rhythmic pulsations from neutron stars or quasars.
Other signals that have to be rejected are those which emanate from our own Earth or satellites. So the a signal from an intelligent mind has to be qualitatively different from all these others in order to meet the criterion of being produced by an intelligent mind which is attempting to communicate.
Now, after having made this abundantly clear, the video narrator goes on to provide the example of the Fibonacci sequence as one that would definitely indicate an intelligent communicating mind as is source.
Other signals that have to be rejected are those which emanate from our own Earth or satellites. So the a signal from an intelligent mind has to be qualitatively different from all these others in order to meet the criterion of being produced by an intelligent mind which is attempting to communicate.
Now, after having made this abundantly clear, the video narrator goes on to provide the example of the Fibonacci sequence as one that would definitely indicate an intelligent communicating mind as is source.
In mathematics, the Fibonacci sequence is a sequence in which each number is the sum of the two preceding ones. Numbers that are part of the Fibonacci sequence are known as Fibonacci numbers, commonly denoted Fn .
The sequence commonly starts from 0 and 1, although some authors start the sequence from 1 and 1 or sometimes (as did Fibonacci) from 1 and 2. Starting from 0 and 1, the sequence begins
0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, ....
The Fibonacci numbers were first described in Indian mathematics as early as 200 BC in work by Pingala on enumerating possible patterns of Sanskrit poetry formed from syllables of two lengths. They are named after the Italian mathematician Leonardo of Pisa, also known as Fibonacci, who introduced the sequence to Western European mathematics in his 1202 book Liber Abaci.
Fibonacci numbers appear unexpectedly often in mathematics, so much so that there is an entire journal dedicated to their study, the Fibonacci Quarterly. Applications of Fibonacci numbers include computer algorithms such as the Fibonacci search technique and the Fibonacci heap data structure, and graphs called Fibonacci cubes used for interconnecting parallel and distributed systems.
They also appear in biological settings, such as branching in trees, the arrangement of leaves on a stem, the fruit sprouts of a pineapple, the flowering of an artichoke, and the arrangement of a pine cone's bracts, though they do not occur in all species.
Fibonacci numbers are also strongly related to the golden ratio: Binet's formula expresses the nth Fibonacci number in terms of n and the golden ratio, and implies that the ratio of two consecutive Fibonacci numbers tends to the golden ratio as n increases. Fibonacci numbers are also closely related to Lucas numbers, which obey the same recurrence relation and with the Fibonacci numbers form a complementary pair of Lucas sequences.
The sequence commonly starts from 0 and 1, although some authors start the sequence from 1 and 1 or sometimes (as did Fibonacci) from 1 and 2. Starting from 0 and 1, the sequence begins
0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, ....
The Fibonacci numbers were first described in Indian mathematics as early as 200 BC in work by Pingala on enumerating possible patterns of Sanskrit poetry formed from syllables of two lengths. They are named after the Italian mathematician Leonardo of Pisa, also known as Fibonacci, who introduced the sequence to Western European mathematics in his 1202 book Liber Abaci.
Fibonacci numbers appear unexpectedly often in mathematics, so much so that there is an entire journal dedicated to their study, the Fibonacci Quarterly. Applications of Fibonacci numbers include computer algorithms such as the Fibonacci search technique and the Fibonacci heap data structure, and graphs called Fibonacci cubes used for interconnecting parallel and distributed systems.
They also appear in biological settings, such as branching in trees, the arrangement of leaves on a stem, the fruit sprouts of a pineapple, the flowering of an artichoke, and the arrangement of a pine cone's bracts, though they do not occur in all species.
Fibonacci numbers are also strongly related to the golden ratio: Binet's formula expresses the nth Fibonacci number in terms of n and the golden ratio, and implies that the ratio of two consecutive Fibonacci numbers tends to the golden ratio as n increases. Fibonacci numbers are also closely related to Lucas numbers, which obey the same recurrence relation and with the Fibonacci numbers form a complementary pair of Lucas sequences.
The narrator goes on to say, that if such a signal is ever detected, it would be incontrovertible evidence that an intelligent source is producing it.
So what exactly is the problem? You might say? Well, the problem is that such a sequence is also found repeatedly in nature.
So what?
Well, if indeed the signal is taken as irrefutable evidence of a communicating mind when it is detected from space, then why suddenly, and inexplicably, refuse to accept taken it as evidence of a mind when it is found in nature?
Therein is the very glaring flaw of inconsistency. A stubborn refusal to abide by the same criterion, whenever the previously accepted criterion reveals something that they cannot, and will not accept, simply because they find it extremely distasteful in one way or another. That policy, goes completely contrary to the essence of science which demands an objective acceptance of evidence regardless of what such evidence might be indicating.
So what exactly is the problem? You might say? Well, the problem is that such a sequence is also found repeatedly in nature.
So what?
Well, if indeed the signal is taken as irrefutable evidence of a communicating mind when it is detected from space, then why suddenly, and inexplicably, refuse to accept taken it as evidence of a mind when it is found in nature?
Therein is the very glaring flaw of inconsistency. A stubborn refusal to abide by the same criterion, whenever the previously accepted criterion reveals something that they cannot, and will not accept, simply because they find it extremely distasteful in one way or another. That policy, goes completely contrary to the essence of science which demands an objective acceptance of evidence regardless of what such evidence might be indicating.