Argument from Mathematics

[Ion]

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.

Very interesting; actually this is what you have to do, “to argue”=to prove. To prove in math that something exists is different from the proof that something that exists has a particular “value” or characterize it in any way.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

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

I’m not sure that the question itself is valid when we only have a data set of one.

 

[catholictiger]

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?

Can you know with certainty that in fact the universe is finite and not infinite?

no you can’t

there is nothing that makes it to where with certainty that the Universe began and will end. A boundary may not actually be making finite it may just be where our understanding stops and later in the future we will discover something that will extend this boundary.

Science says the Big Bang is the begging of space time. Is there a possibiilty that something was before the Big Bang? yes. Could we universe actually be a part of an infinite chain of multiverses which cause other universes? yes.

My point is that in science we can never have 100% certainty about anything.

So if you use a thing in science or math to prove God exists it could change in the future which would destroy your God.

 

[catholictiger]

Very interesting; actually this is what you have to do, “to argue”=to prove. To prove in math that something exists is different from the proof that something that exists has a particular “value” or characterize it in any way.

and God is the simplest of all things. Even basic math 1+1 is to simple to explain who God is.

 

[Least]

Can you know with certainty that in fact the universe is finite and not infinite?

no you can’t

there is nothing that makes it to where with certainty that the Universe began and will end. A boundary may not actually be making finite it may just be where our understanding stops and later in the future we will discover something that will extend this boundary.

Science says the Big Bang is the begging of space time. Is there a possibiilty that something was before the Big Bang? yes. Could we universe actually be a part of an infinite chain of multiverses which cause other universes? yes.

My point is that in science we can never have 100% certainty about anything.

So if you use a thing in science or math to prove God exists it could change in the future which would destroy your God.

I only meant that, finite or infinite, the Universe is full of finite things, all of those things fit into a bag called finite things, which do not have a causeality that can also fit into that bag, ergo - the infinite.

C’mon everybody GOD likes math

Matthew 10:30; Luke 12:7 “…the very hairs on your head are counted”
GOD knows how many HE gave you, but HE, again, is a perfectionist, and HE counted them. Who else could have gotten you to sit still so long to accomplish that?

LAUS DEO.

 

[catholictiger]

I only meant that, finite or infinite, the Universe is full of finite things, all of those things fit into a bag called finite things, which do not have a causeality that can also fit into that bag, ergo - the infinite.

C’mon everybody GOD likes math

Matthew 10:30; Luke 12:7 “…the very hairs on your head are counted”
GOD knows how many HE gave you, but HE, again, is a perfectionist, and HE counted them. Who else could have gotten you to sit still so long to accomplish that?

LAUS DEO.

God like math but Math can’t prove God without the assistance of philosophy.

 

[Ismael]

What do you all think about using mathematics to prove God’s existence?

God Bless,
ClemtheCatholic

No, but mathematics is a great problem to naturalism and materialism (ie. that only the natural and material world exists) and certainly is deadly for empiricism (ie only empirical data brings the thruth, since math brings truth without experiments). These are the main basis for atheism, usually.

I suppose that math might be some sort of starting point for an argument though.

 

[inocente]

No, but mathematics is a great problem to naturalism and materialism (ie. that only the natural and material world exists) and certainly is deadly for empiricism (ie only empirical data brings the thruth, since math brings truth without experiments). These are the main basis for atheism, usually.

I suppose that math might be some sort of starting point for an argument though.

Sorry but nope, nope and three times nope. Math can only manipulate axioms, and axioms cannot be proven to be true.

 

[Least]

When Theoretical Physicists complete mult-blackboarded computations and arrive, disparringly, at a result of “infinity” they do not thank the LORD for HIS gentle hand and subtle wit, instead, in disgust, they typically chuck the whole thing, and take out the eraser to start anew.

BUT that is still GOD winking.

If HE put his face in the sky instead of the sun, you would lie prostrate to him and never lift your nose from the dirt. GOD is subtle.

LAUS DEO!

 

[Cirdan_XII]

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.

In what way does i not exist?

I’m an engineer and I use the number i regularly in calculations. There are many calculations that couldn’t be done otherwise.

Some people say, well you can’t count to it, or you can’t use it as a measure of certain things.

But there are also other numbers you cannot use as a measure in certain situations. You cannot give somebody 0.5 of a piece of cheese for example because if you cut a peice of cheese you have two pieces of cheese, so you can only give a whole number of pieces. But is that a reason top say 0.5 does not exist?

 

[Cirdan_XII]

. . . (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.

The fact that a decimal goes on forever is not actually a problem for most people. The fact that some numbers are irrational (that is, they cannot be written as a fraction, however complicated) is one that stumps far more people. Back in the days of the ancients, when the Pythagoreans still lived, there was actually a guy who proved that the square root of two was an irrational number. He was put to death for sacriiledge as the belief was the gods would not permit a number that did not break down as a clean and well-behaved fraction.

 

[Least]

O U C H

Thank you for cc’ing my post.

Sorry the Sumerians gave us (as first known)*** DECIMALS***. NOT fractions.

jeesh.

Leading people astray is always easy, and I never get going at a proper clip until I’m really screwing up.

 

[Least]

And thank you, yes, irrationality should carry the death penalty, but it was probably becuase the dude looked like Einstein, and people thought it might be contagious.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

C’mon everybody GOD likes math

Although there are times when he doesn’t like math: [BIBLEDRB]1 Chronicles 21:1[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Chronicles 21:7[/BIBLEDRB]

Except those times that he does: [BIBLEDRB]2 Samuel 24:1[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Evan]

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.

It was determine long ago. PI has no last decimal. Of course neither does 2/3.

2/3 = 0.6666… and if to stop at any point, it end in 7. If you don’t stop, it’s still 6.

Or how about 5/11 = .45454545454545…
what is the last digit?

Isn’t one.

PI is irrational, so it is not made up of REPEATING digits. But this proves nothing except we like to use integers as the basis of our number system. It’s easier to count if integers exist.

BUT if the basis of our system is PI, then the expansion for PI is 1.

BUT the number of cars I own is 0.3183 and who want’s that?

 

[Least]

OK so. . . Math = Proof of GOD? → ~ meh

But we got to communicate about HIM while talking math so that’s good right?

I think HE’s laughing.

 

[Evan]

OK so. . . Math = Proof of GOD? → ~ meh

But we got to communicate about HIM while talking math so that’s good right?

I think HE’s laughing.

Quite right

 

[Bobby_Jim]

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

To take this a little further, as I understand it Goedel’s theorems essentially prove that mathematics can’t prove itself to be self-consistent without some unproven axioms; i.e. there is no set of axioms that is entirely sufficient to prove all the axioms.

Which says to me that there can be no mathematical proof for God, and there can also be no mathematical proof that there is no God, as mathematics itself can’t be proven.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Mathematics as such, purely and simply, cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence of God.

However, mathematics is like science in that it can provide pointers to the existence of Something creative going on behind the universe. Case in point.

The Big Bang theory. When he developed his theory of relativity, Einstein deliberately fudged the math in such a way as to arrive at a steady state universe. He did this because he had the conviction held by many scientists at the time that the universe was eternal and uncreated.

Along comes George LeMaitre, a young mathematician who points out that Einstein’s math is indeed fudged. By following the math where it should have led Einstein, LeMaitre was able to deduce that the universe did not always exist, that it was born from a “primeval atom.”

Thus, in that sense, mathematics could “point to,” if nor prove, the existence of some entity that gave birth to the universe. Various names have been given to that source. Christians call it God.

 

[inocente]

Along comes George LeMaitre, a young mathematician who points out that Einstein’s math is indeed fudged. By following the math where it should have led Einstein, LeMaitre was able to deduce that the universe did not always exist, that it was born from a “primeval atom.”

Thus, in that sense, mathematics could “point to,” if nor prove, the existence of some entity that gave birth to the universe. Various names have been given to that source. Christians call it God.

Which would be great if it was true but it isn’t. LeMaitre even warned his pope not to draw that conclusion.

His theory says the universe was once very small, it does not and cannot say whether the universe existed before that, it’s equally likely that it did or didn’t, either way is a belief unsupported by math or science.