Argument from Mathematics

[catholictiger]

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.

how is pi the proof for the existence of God?

you may prove that the infinite exists, that the idea of a perfection exists but not that God exists.

only using mathematics argue God exists?

how do we know that God is this thing infinite approaches? (only with mathematics)

how do we know only using math that God is the perfect?

I respect what you are saying and I see what you are getting at, but I’m far from convinced that this could work using ONLY math.

 

[catholictiger]

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.

was Thomas’ ways an emotional demonstration of God’s exist (its not a proof)

 

[Least]

(* symbol for) pi x r (squared) or (* symbol for) pi x d

Sorry, 2 x pi x radius or pi x d

how is pi the proof for the existence of God?

you may prove that the infinite exists, that the idea of a perfection exists but not that God exists.

only using mathematics argue God exists?

how do we know that God is this thing infinite approaches? (only with mathematics)

how do we know only using math that God is the perfect?

I respect what you are saying and I see what you are getting at, but I’m far from convinced that this could work using ONLY math.

Please see my other post, EVERYTHING PROVES GOD, even jello. In the beginning was The WORD. . . but HE also gave us numbers because, you cannot play with them long enough without seeing HIM everywhere. Read The Emporer’s New Mind, Penrose.

FEAR THE LORD, for he has all the math answers.

 

[inocente]

was Thomas’ ways an emotional demonstration of God’s exist (its not a proof)

Neither proof nor mathematical.

 

[catholictiger]

Sorry, 2 x pi x radius or pi x d

Please see my other post, EVERYTHING PROVES GOD, even jello. In the beginning was The WORD. . . but HE also gave us numbers because, you cannot play with them long enough without seeing HIM everywhere. Read The Emporer’s New Mind, Penrose.

FEAR THE LORD, for he has all the math answers.

How can we prove that something exists that we can no comprehend not understand, and is beyond everything.

I think its wrong to say everything proves God. Here is why you are using a chain of finite things to try and prove something infinite. Without using philosophy you can’t prove that God exists from all of this.

Again I challenge you let your argument pan out forget what the bible says about God your preconceived notions about God etc, use your same argument and see if you can argue to the same things without your preconceived notions.

When you use preconceived notions about God you fall into traps like anselm. You argue back to your own notion of God. God is infinite, math argues to the infinite, therefore math argues to God. Therefore God exists How do you know God is infinite?

 

[catholictiger]

note: this is how Aquinas argued and why his ways are so convincing for many of us.

Premise: something that is not denied by anyone (well most people don’t deny it)
argument: using the premise use logic to necessitate that God exists.

example:
we know everything in the world is finite (this is obvious from looking at the world)
using the principle of sufficient reason he argues that these finite realities can’t exist if it is a infinite regress of finite. (this now of days isn’t as convincing as it use to be)
something must be infinite that is the sufficient reason for the existence of the finite.
This is who we all call God.

Notice that Aquinas never posits a way to demonstrate how the Christian God exists. He argues to common terminology of God to prove that the Christian God is a good fit for what the God we know must exist.

 

[Least]

How can we prove that something exists that we can no comprehend not understand, and is beyond everything.

I think its wrong to say everything proves God. Here is why you are using a chain of finite things to try and prove something infinite. Without using philosophy you can’t prove that God exists from all of this.

Again I challenge you let your argument pan out forget what the bible says about God your preconceived notions about God etc, use your same argument and see if you can argue to the same things without your preconceived notions.

When you use preconceived notions about God you fall into traps like anselm. You argue back to your own notion of God. God is infinite, math argues to the infinite, therefore math argues to God. How do you know God is infinite?

I am finite, GOD is more real to me than me, and I have only finite measures to prove me right, and the rest of you to attempt to convince me otherwise.

 

[catholictiger]

Neither proof nor mathematical.

I don’t think there is any proof for the existence of God in the modern use of the word. What I was trying to show with STA doesn’t use emotion to try and demonstrate God’s existence.

like Anselm says we move from faith to reason. I’m currently just arguing that math isn’t a way to do this.

 

[catholictiger]

I am finite, GOD is more real to me than me, and I have only finite measures to prove me right, and the rest of you to attempt to convince me otherwise.

can you ever be convinced that God exists (outside of faith) or can we only argue that it is probably the case that God exists.

for example can you prove or disprove that an infinite regress is possible or not if you can’t actually observe the infinite or the lack thereof.

 

[inocente]

I don’t think there is any proof for the existence of God in the modern use of the word. What I was trying to show with STA doesn’t use emotion to try and demonstrate God’s existence.

Might have been more interesting if he had!

I’m currently just arguing that math isn’t a way to do this.

Agreed, math must be based axioms, and by definition axioms can’t be proven.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

No disrespect but I don’t get eat your trying to day here.

I also mean no disrespect, but doesn’t that also mean that your attempts to communicate ideas and concepts are frequently failing?

 

[Least]

can you ever be convinced that God exists (outside of faith) or can we only argue that it is probably the case that God exists.

for example can you prove or disprove that an infinite regress is possible or not if you can’t actually observe the infinite or the lack thereof.

You can observe the infinite by viewing the breadth and totality of the finite without observing its boundaries. You don’t have to view the edge of the universe to see that what is contained within is finite, however that “finite-ness” is in a bag labled finite, that bag cannot be shown to have sprung from anything other than something outside the bag (i.e., “infinite”).

When pressed, I always resort to violence. What are we shooting for here? Do you want me to make you swear to it?

 

[Least]

I also mean no disrespect, but doesn’t that also mean that your attempts to communicate ideas and concepts are frequently failing?

Yep, not necessarily wrong (although no absolute claim to the otherwise, just a denial of malice and), just poorly conveyed. I’m tryin man, I’m tryin. It don’t always read like its writ.

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

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

Well of course the probability of the universe being exactly how it is today is incredibly low. But doesn’t every possible universe have an incredibly low probability? Is there such a thing as a likely universe?

Not to mention we cannot really truly determine the probability. All we can do is look at the constants/laws/initial conditions and work out the probability that it was this exact combination and not something else.

Of course the probability will be way below 0.05. But why are you choosing 0.05? Sure, that’s the usual significance level for a hypothesis test, but it is completely arbitrary and isn’t some set way to reject something, especially concerning something as complex as the universe.

It’s a nice thought, but we cannot reduce the universe to a hypothesis test. Not to mention we cannot determine the probability of a designer designing the universe as an alternative, and so you have nothing to compare this null hypothesis with.

When you think about it, wouldn’t the probability concerning a designer be around the same? Because think of every physical aspect of this universe. It would have to have been designed when the designer set out those initial conditions. But isn’t that design mostly… arbitrary? Think of the trillions of possible variations the designer could have put into those initial conditions, while still making it able to conceive life.

Isn’t the probability, therefore, of the designer making an arbitrary choice in terms of the design of the universe more or less equal to random chance? Or is there a purpose and reason for every single physical aspect of the universe? Much of it seems arbitrary, and if it is arbitrary, I don’t see how that is a good alternative to randomness.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Yep, not necessarily wrong (although no absolute claim to the otherwise, just a denial of malice and), just poorly conveyed. I’m tryin man, I’m tryin. It don’t always read like its writ.

lol, well keep on tryin’ and on’t give up!

 

[wcknight]

All of mathematics and all of faith boils down to one question about absolute truth, either “it is” or “it is not”… for faith either “God exists” or “God does not”.

It is interesting to note that God choose His name as Yahweh meaning “I AM” or “I exist”.

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

I doubt maths could ever ‘prove’ God.

However, it does give indications, like the existence of order in the universe etc.

Not to mention the golden ratio which is found throughout nature and is nicknamed “God’s fingerprint”.

15 examples of the golden ratio in nature

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…]
It is interesting to note that God choose His name as Yahweh meaning “I AM” or “I exist”.

I thought that was "ʾehyeh ʾašer ʾehyeh " (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה ).

( ? )

 

[DelsonJacobs]

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

No. It’s more like trying to use a ruler to prove how creative one’s imagination is.

A ruler is a great measuring tool and can even be the perfect tool for providing proofs, if the answer can be provided by a measurement.

Regardless of how accurate a ruler is and how precise a tool it can be, it is still an insufficient tool to prove if one’s imagination is creative enough to produce something.

The same with mathematics. It’s a great way to get answers, but it isn’t a tool of precision when it comes to proving God. God is always going to be more than an equation, and even if God could be reduced to numbers, so to speak, revelation would still be need to explain what those numbers mean.

 

[FrancisBenedict]

OK mathematically what is the chance of all this around us, and in space, and most of all this life?
Maybe that is the answer.

I don’t mean 100% because it already is, I mean from when it wasn’t to now!