C
ClemtheCatholic
Guest
What do you all think about using mathematics to prove God’s existence?
God Bless,
ClemtheCatholic
God Bless,
ClemtheCatholic
- Status
F
FrancisBenedict
Guest
God is the greatest mathematician!
P
ProVobis
Guest
And physicist.
C
catholictiger
Guest
I guess there could be a way but that would be extremely difficult and could never be a “proof” for God.
Science can never prove that God exists, all we can do is philosophically argue for the necessity that a god must exist.
Science can never prove that God exists, all we can do is philosophically argue for the necessity that a god must exist.
C
CompSciGuy
Guest
You cannot use mathematics to prove God’s existence. If you could then there would be no atheists. You can use mathematics to argue for the necessity of intelligent/divine intervention for the universe to exist in its current state.What do you all think about using mathematics to prove God’s existence?
God Bless,
ClemtheCatholic
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
If you think it’s an enjoyable activity then have fun with it.
Though even if you are successful at coming up with a “proof” unless those to which you are presenting it accept the same axioms as you I don’t think it will have much traction.
P
polytropos
Guest
What exactly do you mean? Do you have an example?
L
Least
Guest
Einstein (is puported to have) said “Mathematicians and Physicists are God’s worst students.”I believe that GOD made us to be curious so that we could seek HIM, and that he knew we would look E V E R Y W H E R E. It’s like a Dad helping his kids with a science project. He says Hmnnnn, well, let’s take a look, have you tried. . .
In fact, I think physics doesn’t fit completely together so that GOD can wink.
I do like (peoples discussion of) pi. Only GOD is perfection, so a perfect circle runs off to converge with the ALMIGHTY at infinity.
Here’s a few: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286 208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481 117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233 786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273724587006 606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146 951941511609433057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548074462379962749 567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656643086021394946395224737190 702179860943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132000568127145263560827…
Here’s the first hundred thousand: geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5337/groupe/digits.html
GOD is AWESOME
LAUS DEO
E
empther
Guest
Atheists will never accept a mathematical or any other kind of proof of God.
Their reasons for not believing in God are emotional, not logical.
There is nothing you can do for people like that.
By the way,
mathematics have expressions for things that don’t really exist,
such as* i * defined as the square root of minus one,
so mathematics wouldn’t prove anything.
Their reasons for not believing in God are emotional, not logical.
There is nothing you can do for people like that.
By the way,
mathematics have expressions for things that don’t really exist,
such as* i * defined as the square root of minus one,
so mathematics wouldn’t prove anything.
R
Razanir
Guest
This. I’ve actually thought of such an argument.
In stats, for hypothesis testing, we reject the null hypothesis if the probability is below .05. If the null hypothesis is atheism and the probability we are concerned with is the probability of the universe as it is given pure determinism. It’s incredibly, INCREDIBLY low. Far lower than any reasonable alpha level, even the minute .0000001 which scientists use. I’d say we have statistical reason to reject that null hypothesis
R
Rete
Guest
While I am rather certain it’s either not possible, or at least not within human grasp at this time, to prove God’s existence mathematically, I do think one can use mathematics to show that it is more likely that something like God does exist rather than not.
Why does there exist order at all? For example, one can look at the infinite set of integers or real numbers and question why such a thing should exist. If I were to imagine all the possible universes, where that majority of them are governed by inconsistent logic and mathematics, those with order and logical consistency would appear to be in the minority (there can only be one such order). If you have a universe where values increment randomly or inconsistently, then you are not likely to have intelligence or really much of any ordered existence like star systems and galaxies.
One thing I have noticed about atheists is that they watch a lot of documentaries about physics, and then they stop there. They say that explains it all, but it does not. So too are the laws of logic, mathematics, and even computation laws of our universe. A Catholic might argue they exist because they come from the mind of God, who is intelligent. St. Augustine might have argued that such laws are actually the mind the of God and that we share in that mind through illumination. St. Aquinas would approach it differently, but both of them would agree that the laws of nature, and our capacity for intelligence, arise from the order of God.
An atheist on the other hand must either (a) assume that it’s all pure luck, with an extraordinarily small probability, or (b) there exists this unprovable multiverse of all possible universes, of which we are but one of the only capable of emergent intelligence. Note that (b) is a conjecture (not proven) which arises entirely from the desire to remove God from the discourse. Doing so, in and of itself, is a form of inconsistent reasoning. It also shows a kind of faith in the nonexistence of a creator to assume that this unprovable and unsubstantiated multiverse must exist since the other options necessarily point towards the existence of a creator, even if they do not prove the creator’s existence.
Now, part of this goes back to the fine-tuning aspect, but what a lot of people miss here is that even the logical and mathematical constraints used to frame that argument themselves display a level of order and consistency which hardly connotes randomness and arbitrariness. You must also consider the logical and mathematical framework of the universe in such an argument, which amplifies the problem for an atheist. It becomes ever more the case that they must appeal to this multiverse conjecture, and there you can merely question why they have so much faith in a matter of science fiction rather than what we can actually prove scientifically. That’s certainly not consistent of them.
Why does there exist order at all? For example, one can look at the infinite set of integers or real numbers and question why such a thing should exist. If I were to imagine all the possible universes, where that majority of them are governed by inconsistent logic and mathematics, those with order and logical consistency would appear to be in the minority (there can only be one such order). If you have a universe where values increment randomly or inconsistently, then you are not likely to have intelligence or really much of any ordered existence like star systems and galaxies.
One thing I have noticed about atheists is that they watch a lot of documentaries about physics, and then they stop there. They say that explains it all, but it does not. So too are the laws of logic, mathematics, and even computation laws of our universe. A Catholic might argue they exist because they come from the mind of God, who is intelligent. St. Augustine might have argued that such laws are actually the mind the of God and that we share in that mind through illumination. St. Aquinas would approach it differently, but both of them would agree that the laws of nature, and our capacity for intelligence, arise from the order of God.
An atheist on the other hand must either (a) assume that it’s all pure luck, with an extraordinarily small probability, or (b) there exists this unprovable multiverse of all possible universes, of which we are but one of the only capable of emergent intelligence. Note that (b) is a conjecture (not proven) which arises entirely from the desire to remove God from the discourse. Doing so, in and of itself, is a form of inconsistent reasoning. It also shows a kind of faith in the nonexistence of a creator to assume that this unprovable and unsubstantiated multiverse must exist since the other options necessarily point towards the existence of a creator, even if they do not prove the creator’s existence.
Now, part of this goes back to the fine-tuning aspect, but what a lot of people miss here is that even the logical and mathematical constraints used to frame that argument themselves display a level of order and consistency which hardly connotes randomness and arbitrariness. You must also consider the logical and mathematical framework of the universe in such an argument, which amplifies the problem for an atheist. It becomes ever more the case that they must appeal to this multiverse conjecture, and there you can merely question why they have so much faith in a matter of science fiction rather than what we can actually prove scientifically. That’s certainly not consistent of them.
L
Least
Guest
. . . (continuing from my previous post) I think it’s great fun (and GOD allows us to revel in it) to note that pi only begins to achieve the expansiveness of its character (the semblance of approaching what one might consider [the idea of] the “infinite”) only due to the mathematical idea of the decimal. It is important to note that not even the ancient Greeks use decimals (they used fractions). It was the Sumerians of Mesopotamia, who gave us fractions, who built the first cities, invented writing, and the wheel AND…(wait for it) also believe their existence stemmed from the period of “the great flood.”
Again. . .
GOD is A W E S O M E ! ! !
And, personally, I think HE likes math. HE likes to subtly impress us.
to note that pi only begins to achieve the expansiveness of its character (the semblance of approaching what one might consider [the idea of] the “infinite”) only due to the mathematical idea of the decimal. It is important to note that not even the ancient Greeks use decimals (they used fractions). It was the Sumerians of Mesopotamia, who gave us fractions, who built the first cities, invented writing, and the wheel AND…(wait for it) also believe their existence stemmed from the period of “the great flood.”Again. . .
GOD is A W E S O M E ! ! !
And, personally, I think HE likes math.
HE likes to subtly impress us.
L
Least
Guest
EVERYTHING PROVES GOD.
Ben Franklin (is purported to have said) “Beer is proof that GOD loves us and wants us to be happy.”
So, sure, math, jello, everything
Ben Franklin (is purported to have said) “Beer is proof that GOD loves us and wants us to be happy.”
So, sure, math, jello, everything
D
DelsonJacobs
Guest
If one is to use mathematics to “prove” God’s existence, then some will expect this proof to be defined by what is known as a “mathematic statement.” This would suggest that God should be able to be “measured” or at least “demonstrated” to exist by deductive reasoning.
The problem with this is that God does not exist in ways that can be measured. God transcends our ability to test him, measure him, and study him. To use a methodology to prove God’s existence also implies that the methodology chosen can indeed define what is and what is not God, and God cannot be defined in such measurable human terms (nor does such a mathematic formula exist as the definition for true divinity).
The reason I say this is that using mathematics would involve in the mind of some that we are going to subject God to the scientific method. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches when one speaks of “proofs” for God, it is “not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of ‘converging and convincing arguments’, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth.”–CCC 33.
The problem with this is that God does not exist in ways that can be measured. God transcends our ability to test him, measure him, and study him. To use a methodology to prove God’s existence also implies that the methodology chosen can indeed define what is and what is not God, and God cannot be defined in such measurable human terms (nor does such a mathematic formula exist as the definition for true divinity).
The reason I say this is that using mathematics would involve in the mind of some that we are going to subject God to the scientific method. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches when one speaks of “proofs” for God, it is “not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of ‘converging and convincing arguments’, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth.”–CCC 33.
R
Razanir
Guest
So is this similar to how in stats we never say we’ve proved or disproved the null hypothesis, only that we have reason to reject or not reject it
I
inocente
Guest
Equally:
Theists will never accept a mathematical or any other kind of disproof of God.
Their reasons for believing in God are emotional, not logical.
There is nothing you can do for people like that.
By the way,
Euler’s Identity relates pie, e, zero, one and * i *, so * i * is just as real as pie, e, zero and one.
C
catholictiger
Guest
No disrespect but I don’t get eat your trying to day here.
I believe that GOD made us to be curious so that we could seek HIM, and that he knew we would look E V E R Y W H E R E. It’s like a Dad helping his kids with a science project. He says Hmnnnn, well, let’s take a look, have you tried. . .
In fact, I think physics doesn’t fit completely together so that GOD can wink.
I do like (peoples discussion of) pi. Only GOD is perfection, so a perfect circle runs off to converge with the ALMIGHTY at infinity.
Here’s a few: 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286 208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481 117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233 786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273724587006 606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146 951941511609433057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548074462379962749 567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656643086021394946395224737190 702179860943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132000568127145263560827…
Here’s the first hundred thousand: geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5337/groupe/digits.html
GOD is AWESOME
LAUS DEO
C
ClemtheCatholic
Guest
I was thinking about how Dr. William Lane Craig makes an Argument from the Applicability of Mathematics to the Natural World in his debate (“Is Faith in God Reasonable?”) with Dr. Alex Rosenberg.
L
Least
Guest
Yep, sorry, you will encounter that problem anywhere you see me post
I just meant (because we were talking about math) that GOD is the only perfection, and, in math, to create the “perfect” circle you would have to use every decimal place of pi in the equation
(* symbol for) pi x r (squared) or (* symbol for) pi x d
No one has yet determined (if there is one or) what the final decimal of pi is so [the mathematical concept of] pi approaches infinity in decimal places like GOD’s true infiniteness.
GOD is precise, the Universe does not fit together in any other venue than in the mind of HE WHO IS. I believe tha pi is proof of GOD, it is a gentle way of saying Hi to us every day. HE IS CONSTANTLY AMAZING, and pi is no mere pull-a-quarter-from-out-from-behind-your-ear trick.
HE let Adam leave Eden, and HE gave us all the rest of this wonderful place, and HE knew, like kids do, we would want to borrow the tape-measure and survey equipment and map it out.
C
catholictiger
Guest
so its not really about an argument for God’s existence?I was thinking about how Dr. William Lane Craig makes an Argument from the Applicability of Mathematics to the Natural World in his debate (“Is Faith in God Reasonable?”) with Dr. Alex Rosenberg.
I don’t believe God can be argued to from science/math/natural world.
God can never be proven like science or math wants it to be proven. We can though use philosophy to argue that God must necessarily exist and from this we know God exists. Science can’t do this and I don’t think math can do this either.
- Status