Can God be proven mathematically?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bohm_Bawerk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bohm_Bawerk

Guest
Personally, I don’t need anymore proofs that God exists. I’m very well sure He exists from the testimonies I have read from others, as well as receiving a rose from St. Therese about two days after my novena, and to call that a coincidence would simply be pure denial.

But that said, can God can be proven mathematically? Are there any areas for maths and religion? I have heard of what is called Euler’s equation and weirdly, it’s sometimes been called “God’s equation”. I don’t know the reason behind it. Is it a proof of God’s existence? Can we prove God’s existence mathematically?

I ask this because many times, I walk around my room thinking, “How does God judge people”? We know that God does not show favouritism. Yet will God give someone who had a very short life span the same fair judgement as someone who lived to be 80; the one who had a short life span had little chance at redeeming him/herself to God whilst someone who was 80 had 80 goods years of coming back to Him. I generally think that God lowers His requirements for some and raises it for others, and that there is some “mystical equilibrium” at which He arrives at for all Humanity so that they can receive a free trial. Being God, He makes no mistakes in His calculations because He is omniscient (all-knowing) and can therefore take every variable into consideration. I have tried to think of how to express His judgement mathematically :rolleyes:😛

I also have the idea that there is a “risk-return ratio” in spirituality. The risk-return ratio comes from finance, which basically says that if one wants to pursue an investment with a higher return, the return must ultimately be risker. In short, the more risky an investment, the more likely it is to provide a higher return, and vice versa: the higher the return of an investment, the more likely it is to be a risky investment. We can extend this to spirituality. Those who are closer to God (return) will also have to face the devil more often (risk). This would explain why St. Padre Pio (being close to God from the day he was born) often had fights with the devil, whilst the majority of the population (who aren’t that close to God when you compare it to the saints) have very little to argue for the devil’s existence (some denying that he even exists). I think this is God’s way of simply being fair, and if He doesn’t implement His fairness in this world, He extends it to the next (either through a marginally harsher judgement or an increased time in Purgatory).

I’m not the next Gauss, I’m not even that brilliant of a mathematician, but I do have quite a firm grasp on several areas of maths (I think one place where Americans call “calculus”, namely differentiation and integration).

Let’s hear the responses 🙂

Thank you,
**Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk **
 
Come to think of it, there has to be a reason why mathematics was often held in high regard by several philosophers from antiquity. Plato, if I’m not mistaken, firmly believed that mathematics was the truest sense of knowledge because it is known a priori (independent of experience), as opposed to a posteriori (from experience) knowledge.

There is an eternal, unchanging characteristic of the area of mathematics (almost like God). We can not argue that 1+1 = 3. Mathematics just is, and it would seem reasonable to conclude that it is the highest area of truth known to us. And as we move from the more mathematical areas (Mathematics, Physics) to the less mathematical (Sociology, English) the less we can examine God in the way St. Thomas Aquinas thought of “examine”: To look at how God has revealed Himself within Nature. And because God has created the physical laws, we can also derive subtle knowledge of His existence since they reveal His implicit nature (Psalm 19:1).

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
 
Nope, really not possible. Mathematics deals with the accident of quantity, and although it can be very useful for examining the various properties of things, it does not actually say anything about the substantial existence of one thing or other. For example, 2+2 = 4, but it does not follow that 4 apples equals 4 archangels, except in quantity alone. Another example may the mathematical definition of a perfect circle- you can describe such a thing and all of its properties perfectly in mathematics, yet whether it actually exists in the entire universe is actually rather doubtful, and whether one will ever be seen in anyone’s lifetime is even more doubtful.

Another mental exercise: is there any mathematical theorem that proves my personal existence, without first assuming the fact that I exist (e.g. not only describes me, but explains my actuality)? And if not, how can there be one that can possibly prove God’s?

The attraction to mathematics by philosophers is also in this very example of the circle, on two points (that I can think of). The concept of a circle shows that there are things that we can conceive of quite easily that have no materiality to them, thus lending support to the idea of immaterial powers within ourselves, which leads to the conclusion that the soul is spiritual and immortal, etc. etc. etc.

The second is this idea of certainty that you alluded to, that makes it very attractive to attach a sort of divinity to mathematical knowledge (i.e. 1+1 will always be 2, and not even God can change this…). Now I’m no mathematician, but it seems to me that the problem with this is that for every 1000 very true mathematical theorems, there may be only 1 that actually describes some particular process that occurs in the world, and that the discovery of the connection between the theorem and reality DEPENDS on reality, and not the other way around. Thus the mathematical theorem necessarily needs some sort of validation in the “real world” in order to give it credence. Otherwise you would end up with a proof for the existence of God that would be much like St. Anslem’s, which fails to connect the conception of the term God to the actual existence of God.

I think Plato DID hold mathematics in very high regard on his “divided line,” but if my memory serves correctly, there was some sort of knowledge that actually transcended mathematical knowledge. I forget what that highest sort was.

In short, mathematics are great in both describing the material world and UPON REFLECTION OF MATHEMATICS, in pointing towards the spiritual nature of the soul. But it again only deals with quantity, and quantity is far from being able to prove the existence of something utterly unquantifiable or otherwise measurable like God.
 
I am no mathematician (did I even spell the word correctly?). I’m not sure if you are talking about an equation, but I did find something interesting. In the book “The Collapse of Evolution” Scott Huse examines the mathematical probability of random chance producing life. He write the chances of spelling evolution by randomly picking 9 letters from the alphabet is 1 in 5,429,503,860,000. The chance of randomly picking the letters in Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created heaven and earth.” are 1 in 1.815 x10 to the 62 power. To put this in perspective, if the universe is 30 billion years old the number of second would only be 10 to the 18 power. There are many other examples like this in the book. I’m not sure if this is what you are looking for, but I hope I helped.
God Bless
 
Aesculus said:
In short, mathematics are great in both describing the material world and UPON REFLECTION OF MATHEMATICS, in pointing towards the spiritual nature of the soul.
Click to expand...
I agree with with Aesculus there. Mathematics deals with quantities and therefore there can’t be an equation that proves God’s existence. However, mathematics can be a way to provide evidence for the existence of God(such as the mathematical improbability of the universe’s constants being just what they are). Also, the fact that mathematical equations can reflect complex realities with such simplicity and eloquence is a sure signpost of the Creator. For as Einstein said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible”. There are also some who apply mathematics to theological questions(like Alexander Pruss); mathematics is very useful. So while you cannot prove God’s existence by pure mathematics, there are some who contest that God can be proved by mathematical logic(by substituting propositions for symbols). For example, Kurt Godel, a world renowned mathematician, applied his mathematical knowledge to the ontological argument so that he, in effect, believed he had proved the existence of God(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof). The continuity of mathematics and philosophy(especially Analytical philosophy) is remarkable, and many of the greatest philosophers were also great mathematicians—not to mention Theists!
 
As already observed, you probably cannot prove God’s existence using mathematics. On the other hand, I think mathematics can point you in the right direction. In an introductory algebra course I took many years ago, we covered the basics of the Cartesian co-ordinate system. Using three axes at 90 degrees to each other (x,y,z) you can represent the entire range of 3-D space. It turns out that you can use any three vectors at any angle to each other, as long as they are linearly independent. The fact that exactly 3 independent vectors are required may seem obvious, but it occurred to me that we also need exactly three primary colours to produce the entire visible spectrum (which can be described mathematically). The interesting part is that Christians believe that three Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) created the entire universe. This may be purely coincidental, but it is intriguing to wonder whether the mathematical trinities are manifestations of a greater reality.
 
Bohm_Bawerk said:
Personally, I don’t need anymore proofs that God exists. I’m very well sure He exists from the testimonies I have read from others, as well as receiving a rose from St. Therese about two days after my novena, and to call that a coincidence would simply be pure denial.

But that said, can God can be proven mathematically? Are there any areas for maths and religion? I have heard of what is called Euler’s equation and weirdly, it’s sometimes been called “God’s equation”. I don’t know the reason behind it. Is it a proof of God’s existence? Can we prove God’s existence mathematically?

I ask this because many times, I walk around my room thinking, “How does God judge people”? We know that God does not show favouritism. Yet will God give someone who had a very short life span the same fair judgement as someone who lived to be 80; the one who had a short life span had little chance at redeeming him/herself to God whilst someone who was 80 had 80 goods years of coming back to Him. I generally think that God lowers His requirements for some and raises it for others, and that there is some “mystical equilibrium” at which He arrives at for all Humanity so that they can receive a free trial. Being God, He makes no mistakes in His calculations because He is omniscient (all-knowing) and can therefore take every variable into consideration. I have tried to think of how to express His judgement mathematically :rolleyes:😛

I also have the idea that there is a “risk-return ratio” in spirituality. The risk-return ratio comes from finance, which basically says that if one wants to pursue an investment with a higher return, the return must ultimately be risker. In short, the more risky an investment, the more likely it is to provide a higher return, and vice versa: the higher the return of an investment, the more likely it is to be a risky investment. We can extend this to spirituality. Those who are closer to God (return) will also have to face the devil more often (risk). This would explain why St. Padre Pio (being close to God from the day he was born) often had fights with the devil, whilst the majority of the population (who aren’t that close to God when you compare it to the saints) have very little to argue for the devil’s existence (some denying that he even exists). I think this is God’s way of simply being fair, and if He doesn’t implement His fairness in this world, He extends it to the next (either through a marginally harsher judgement or an increased time in Purgatory).

I’m not the next Gauss, I’m not even that brilliant of a mathematician, but I do have quite a firm grasp on several areas of maths (I think one place where Americans call “calculus”, namely differentiation and integration).

Let’s hear the responses 🙂

Thank you,
**Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk **
Click to expand...
Eugen:

Probably the only math that could come close to proving God would be probability. If one could weigh the probability that God exists against the probability that He doesn’t, that might be interesting. Physicists have estimated the number of stars in the universe mathematically, so why not? Even though that would not be a “proof,” per se, it would be interesting.

Another possibility might be to prove that there can be no naturally occurring infinity. Mathematicians play with infinity conceptually, but cannot prove that one exists. Proof would have to take the form that other scientific endeavors demand: it would have to be observable, somehow. There is an open question as to whether or not the universe is infinite. But, because we cannot detect any light beyond the 16.7 billion year out range, we have no evidence that the universe isn’t just a trans-finite finity.

That is also the problem with the speculative theory that we are just one universe out of trillions, in a multiverse. There is no evidence for a multiverse whatsoever.

A third possibility would be to ascertain the purpose of black holes. Are they for the purpose of maintaining the equilibrium between matter/energy production and matter/energy destruction? IOW, is new matter being formed which upsets the balance of the laws of thermodynamics, but then, removed so as to keep the proportions as constant as possible, and/or vice versa?

So, there’s some work for you!

BTW, while God loves each of us the same, there is a favoritism of sorts. Scripture speaks of the “elect.” Calvin hyper-extended the concept into absolute verisimilitude. While there is no doubt that some of us will not be saved - even though God loves us dearly - by Catholic thought, every person has the capability of correcting for past mortal sins (even, perhaps, Adolph!). As you point out, it may well be that a stint of varying length in purgatory may ultimately be required. So far, all that we have ever had revealed to us is that Satan (and his minions) are in Hell. But Satan was not a fallen man; he was a fallen Angel.

God bless,
jd
 
Moontown_Rabbit said:
Monkies can be proved mathematically.

…(bananas * 5000) ^ int (A.D.D * (rand) + 1)
Monkey = d[mischeif] --------------------------------------------------------------
…(Tarzan) * d[time]
Click to expand...
Moontown:

I needed that! That’s funny. I’m still laughing. (Every darn time I look at it!)

God bless,
jd
 
Bohm,

Apparently mathematics cannot prove to the existence of God. However three of the greatest mathematicians have tried, namely Leibniz, Cantor, and Godel. All three believed in God and based their attempts at proofs on St. Anselm’s ontological proof. Although we cannot prove the existence of God we can suggest certain ways in which we think God can possibly exist. Cantor is the mathematician that I believe has come closest to achieving this with his set theory and transfinite numbers.

Yppop
 
yppop said:
Bohm,

Cantor is the mathematician that I believe has come closest to achieving this with his set theory and transfinite numbers.

Yppop
Click to expand...
Any more detail on Cantor? Apparently, he thought transfinite numbers revealed God.
I have been looking for a good book or article on this aspect of Cantor’s work.
 
Thank you for all the responses. They were incredibly helpful, and hopefully there will be many more to come.

I don’t know why I’m preoccupied and curious as to how God’s mind works. I wonder what God thinks of me that I’m thinking this. Today, I just had another idea :idea:. Scriptures say that it is better to give than receive (Acts 20:35). Charity is another name for giving.

Let’s say that a person wants to go on a trip that costs $500 but hasn’t got the funds for it. He looks everywhere and sees he can’t find it. So he resorts to his church. Luckily, the church has some funds available, so they give it to the person. The person is incredibly grateful. He can now go on this trip.

When the person comes back from his trip, he understands the value of charity and wants to give back to society (namely, the church). Up until now, he gives about $250.

My idea is that whilst both gave, the church priest would be seen as more charitable than the person who came back from his trip. The church priest would be in what I would call a “charitable surplus”, namely, he is in a surplus of $250. The person who received the $500 would be in a “charitable deficit”, all other things remaining equal.

One should strive to be in a charitable surplus, since “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
 
Aesculus said:
Nope, really not possible. Mathematics deals with the accident of quantity, and although it can be very useful for examining the various properties of things, it does not actually say anything about the substantial existence of one thing or other. For example, 2+2 = 4, but it does not follow that 4 apples equals 4 archangels, except in quantity alone. Another example may the mathematical definition of a perfect circle- you can describe such a thing and all of its properties perfectly in mathematics, yet whether it actually exists in the entire universe is actually rather doubtful, and whether one will ever be seen in anyone’s lifetime is even more doubtful.

Another mental exercise: is there any mathematical theorem that proves my personal existence, without first assuming the fact that I exist (e.g. not only describes me, but explains my actuality)? And if not, how can there be one that can possibly prove God’s?

The attraction to mathematics by philosophers is also in this very example of the circle, on two points (that I can think of). The concept of a circle shows that there are things that we can conceive of quite easily that have no materiality to them, thus lending support to the idea of immaterial powers within ourselves, which leads to the conclusion that the soul is spiritual and immortal, etc. etc. etc.

The second is this idea of certainty that you alluded to, that makes it very attractive to attach a sort of divinity to mathematical knowledge (i.e. 1+1 will always be 2, and not even God can change this…). Now I’m no mathematician, but it seems to me that the problem with this is that for every 1000 very true mathematical theorems, there may be only 1 that actually describes some particular process that occurs in the world, and that the discovery of the connection between the theorem and reality DEPENDS on reality, and not the other way around. Thus the mathematical theorem necessarily needs some sort of validation in the “real world” in order to give it credence. Otherwise you would end up with a proof for the existence of God that would be much like St. Anslem’s, which fails to connect the conception of the term God to the actual existence of God.

I think Plato DID hold mathematics in very high regard on his “divided line,” but if my memory serves correctly, there was some sort of knowledge that actually transcended mathematical knowledge. I forget what that highest sort was.

In short, mathematics are great in both describing the material world and UPON REFLECTION OF MATHEMATICS, in pointing towards the spiritual nature of the soul. But it again only deals with quantity, and quantity is far from being able to prove the existence of something utterly unquantifiable or otherwise measurable like God.
Click to expand...
This was very helpful. Thank you very much Aesculus 🙂

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
 
levinas12 said:
Any more detail on Cantor? Apparently, he thought transfinite numbers revealed God.
I have been looking for a good book or article on this aspect of Cantor’s work.
Click to expand...
The Mystery of the Aleph" by Amir D. Aczel is a good book specifically about Cantor.

“Everything and More” by David Foster Wallace is a history of the study of infinity that also includes work by Karl Weierstrass and Richard Dedekind.

Both are written for the general reader.

Yppop
 
Bohm_Bawerk said:
Thank you for all the responses. They were incredibly helpful, and hopefully there will be many more to come.

I don’t know why I’m preoccupied and curious as to how God’s mind works. I wonder what God thinks of me that I’m thinking this. Today, I just had another idea :idea:. Scriptures say that it is better to give than receive (Acts 20:35). Charity is another name for giving.

Let’s say that a person wants to go on a trip that costs $500 but hasn’t got the funds for it. He looks everywhere and sees he can’t find it. So he resorts to his church. Luckily, the church has some funds available, so they give it to the person. The person is incredibly grateful. He can now go on this trip.

When the person comes back from his trip, he understands the value of charity and wants to give back to society (namely, the church). Up until now, he gives about $250.

My idea is that whilst both gave, the church priest would be seen as more charitable than the person who came back from his trip. The church priest would be in what I would call a “charitable surplus”, namely, he is in a surplus of $250. The person who received the $500 would be in a “charitable deficit”, all other things remaining equal.

One should strive to be in a charitable surplus, since “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
Click to expand...
St. Therese of Lisieux often did things in what some termed her “Little Way”. She never strove to do big things, or to radically change society, but did little things everyday to gain God’s favour.

In many ways, there is an implicit mathematical advantage to it. One can do “little things” every day, and eventually it will add up to something big; one can not do “big things” everyday, since they tend to happen only once in a while. The probability is therefore stacked in someone’s favour to focus on doing “little things”.

My belief is that St. Therese’s method could be compared to the beauty of compounding, which Albert Einstein is said to have called “the eighth wonder of the world”.

People sometimes play the lottery to get a huge amount of money. Let’s just say someone was playing to get $100,000. Chances are, that person would not win. Indeed, many people have played the lottery in their entire life and have not gotten a penny out of it.

But if one adapted St. Therese’s method of doing “little things”, thanks to the beauty of compounding, one could get $100,000 in slightly over 30 years, if that person put a mere $1000 a year at an investment accruing 7.7% year-on-year (disregarding inflation): followsteph.com/images/graphs/exponentialGraph.gif
This would be highly certain, unlike playing the lottery. But whilst the person is putting $1000 into the investment every year, it doesn’t feel like anything big or that it will lead to anything worthwhile.

There was much truth to St. Therese’s advice 🙂

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
 
yppop said:
levinas12;7774099:
Any more detail on Cantor? Apparently, he thought transfinite numbers revealed God.
I have been looking for a good book or article on this aspect of Cantor’s work.
Click to expand...
The Mystery of the Aleph
Click to expand...
" by Amir D. Aczel is a good book specifically about Cantor.

“Everything and More” by David Foster Wallace is a history of the study of infinity that also includes work by Karl Weierstrass and Richard Dedekind.

Both are written for the general reader.

Yppop

I might look into this 🙂

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
 
yppop said:
levinas12;7774099:
Any more detail on Cantor? Apparently, he thought transfinite numbers revealed God.
I have been looking for a good book or article on this aspect of Cantor’s work.
Click to expand...
The Mystery of the Aleph
Click to expand...
" by Amir D. Aczel is a good book specifically about Cantor.

“Everything and More” by David Foster Wallace is a history of the study of infinity that also includes work by Karl Weierstrass and Richard Dedekind.

Both are written for the general reader.

Yppop

Thanks. Didn’t Wallace do some unusual short stories as well?
 
Bohm_Bawerk said:
Thank you for all the responses. They were incredibly helpful, and hopefully there will be many more to come.

I don’t know why I’m preoccupied and curious as to how God’s mind works. I wonder what God thinks of me that I’m thinking this. Today, I just had another idea :idea:. Scriptures say that it is better to give than receive (Acts 20:35). Charity is another name for giving.

Let’s say that a person wants to go on a trip that costs $500 but hasn’t got the funds for it. He looks everywhere and sees he can’t find it. So he resorts to his church. Luckily, the church has some funds available, so they give it to the person. The person is incredibly grateful. He can now go on this trip.

When the person comes back from his trip, he understands the value of charity and wants to give back to society (namely, the church). Up until now, he gives about $250.

My idea is that whilst both gave, the church priest would be seen as more charitable than the person who came back from his trip. The church priest would be in what I would call a “charitable surplus”, namely, he is in a surplus of $250. The person who received the $500 would be in a “charitable deficit”, all other things remaining equal.

One should strive to be in a charitable surplus, since “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
Click to expand...
I would love to discuss this, if it is on topic. Is this about Math and God?

I am not sure I understand your line of thinking with this post about a person “wanting” to go on a trip.

Is this a missionary trip?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top