Math and God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-02-2013, 09:16 AM
RE: Math and God
The only way to use math to create an equation to prove God is to get into a pseudo form of math called quantum mechanics. Therefore there is no way anyone could use legitimate math to prove God...

Obama promised you change. Reach in your pocket, feel those coins? There's your change...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 01:18 PM
RE: Math and God
It's not so much that math is used to describe situations to complicated for natural language, as it's used for situations where precision and quantity is important and ambiguity to be avoided.

As for math being used to describe God? Well, the problem is that the God-concept has a lot of ambiguity built in, and math doesn't work well in these cases. (Even math that deals with uncertainty, like statistics, is built towards being certain about the nature of the uncertainty.) We can use propositional logic and formal logic (both on the gray borders of what is and isn't math) to contemplate proposed traits of God and their implications, I suppose.

That said, there's been a lot of... faulty attempts to use math to prove God or the immaterial. The Pythagoreans equated the four regular solids to the four elements. When they discovered a fifth regular solid, the dodecahedron, they concluded that this was evidence for a fifth element, the immaterial quintessence. Someone (I forget who) back in the Renaissance tried to equate 0 with evil and 1 with God and did some really artful arguing from there, and Leibniz had a great book of true/false propositions. And of course there's Pascal's Wager, which used primitive probability (which, to be fair, was the best available at the time) and even more primitive game theory in an incorrect manner to conclude that we should treat the God-concept as true, even if it might be false.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
26-02-2013, 02:19 AM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2013 02:22 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Math and God
(25-02-2013 03:22 AM)Sceptical Prophet Wrote:  If there is a possibility it exists, it can be proven by maths. However, not all things that are mathematically reconcilable are real. Most of the time, when somebody says there's maths suggesting something, it means that there are no mathematical problems preventing the existence of that thing. Whether or not it actually exists is a whole new level.

If you want to use maths to prove god, good luck. That task in itself will be impossible, and even if you managed it, it still wouldn't be solid proof - just proof that if god did exist, it wouldn't be breaking any laws.

I'm not interested in using maths to prove God. The reason I started this thread is because in a conversation with an atheist friend, he mentioned that he thought there was a reasonable possibility the multiverse is real. He didn't think there was a reasonable possibility God is real. I challenged him on this because there isn't a whole lot of evidence for a multiverse. He said his reason for believing in the possibility of a multiverse was because it had a sound mathmatical basis. Thats what got me thinking about if math can be used to describe God.

If math can be used to describe a human being, then it should be able to describe God. If there exist an algorithm or mathematical formula, discovered or not, which describes the workings of a particular human being couldn't that algorithm or formula be modified to include one additional ability or knowledge of one more fact? In principle no matter how able or knowledgeable a being can be, there always exists an algorithm or formula that describes a superior being. Kinda like infinity but instead of adding 1 to the highest number, one more ability or knowledge of a fact is built into the algorithm which describes the supreme being.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 03:46 AM
RE: Math and God
(26-02-2013 02:19 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I'm not interested in using maths to prove God. The reason I started this thread is because in a conversation with an atheist friend, he mentioned that he thought there was a reasonable possibility the multiverse is real. He didn't think there was a reasonable possibility God is real. I challenged him on this because there isn't a whole lot of evidence for a multiverse. He said his reason for believing in the possibility of a multiverse was because it had a sound mathmatical basis. Thats what got me thinking about if math can be used to describe God.

If math can be used to describe a human being, then it should be able to describe God. If there exist an algorithm or mathematical formula, discovered or not, which describes the workings of a particular human being couldn't that algorithm or formula be modified to include one additional ability or knowledge of one more fact? In principle no matter how able or knowledgeable a being can be, there always exists an algorithm or formula that describes a superior being. Kinda like infinity but instead of adding 1 to the highest number, one more ability or knowledge of a fact is built into the algorithm which describes the supreme being.

Am I the only one who thinks "math can be used to describe a human being" is being tossed out there a little flippantly? I've never heard of this. Describe me using only numbers. Numerology is a bit like Astrology. It makes grandiose claims about having a sort of divine knowledge based on unrelated and ineffective patterns and sources.

That whole "you can always think of a superior +1 being" just comes off as being derivative of the Argument of Degree/Perfection, aka Aquinas' 4th argument. There are lesser and greater degrees of goodness so there must exist a being that is the greatest good. But everyone here knows that Aquinas was the Bill O Reilly of the 13th century, using logical fallacies and ignorance as arguments.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Buddy Christ's post
26-02-2013, 04:32 AM
RE: Math and God
(26-02-2013 03:46 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
(26-02-2013 02:19 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I'm not interested in using maths to prove God. The reason I started this thread is because in a conversation with an atheist friend, he mentioned that he thought there was a reasonable possibility the multiverse is real. He didn't think there was a reasonable possibility God is real. I challenged him on this because there isn't a whole lot of evidence for a multiverse. He said his reason for believing in the possibility of a multiverse was because it had a sound mathmatical basis. Thats what got me thinking about if math can be used to describe God.

If math can be used to describe a human being, then it should be able to describe God. If there exist an algorithm or mathematical formula, discovered or not, which describes the workings of a particular human being couldn't that algorithm or formula be modified to include one additional ability or knowledge of one more fact? In principle no matter how able or knowledgeable a being can be, there always exists an algorithm or formula that describes a superior being. Kinda like infinity but instead of adding 1 to the highest number, one more ability or knowledge of a fact is built into the algorithm which describes the supreme being.

Am I the only one who thinks "math can be used to describe a human being" is being tossed out there a little flippantly? I've never heard of this. Describe me using only numbers. Numerology is a bit like Astrology. It makes grandiose claims about having a sort of divine knowledge based on unrelated and ineffective patterns and sources.

That whole "you can always think of a superior +1 being" just comes off as being derivative of the Argument of Degree/Perfection, aka Aquinas' 4th argument. There are lesser and greater degrees of goodness so there must exist a being that is the greatest good. But everyone here knows that Aquinas was the Bill O Reilly of the 13th century, using logical fallacies and ignorance as arguments.
BuddyChrist, if simulation hypothesis is true, you're nothing more than a collection of 1s and 0s being processed on a computer....an algorithm.
If you want, take humans out of it and substitute instead a computer program like IBM's Watson. When it beat Ken Jennings on jeopardy it had a physical body(the plunger which rang the buzzer). Couldn't you in theory always add something to the program/hardware to make it more knowledgeable/capable?
Now I am not trying to use math to prove that God exists. If numbers have no bounds, why should there be bounds on the algorithms that describe or potentially describe beings? Even if we don't know those algorithms they still exists just like numbers which exceed Graham's number exist.
To my athiests friend who thinks the multiverse is plausible because there is math to suggest that it is plausible, I would say to him now there is maths to suggest God is plausible too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 04:26 PM
RE: Math and God
In principle if the starting conditions are known then a human can be simulated using fundamental laws of physics, just as any physical object could be. Heywood, are you suggesting that God is physical - that it has laws of physics that govern its behaviour - that it has defined or definable properties we can test to prove whether heshe exists?

If so, what do you propose your God's properties or your God's physics to be?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 05:37 PM
RE: Math and God
(26-02-2013 03:46 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  ..."you can always think of a superior +1 being"...j
Holy heavy mace of +1 Superior Being

If you find one let me know... my cleric is still looking for one....
Consider

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 11:43 PM
RE: Math and God
(26-02-2013 04:32 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  To my athiests friend who thinks the multiverse is plausible because there is math to suggest that it is plausible, I would say to him now there is maths to suggest God is plausible too.


But possibility and probability are two entirely different creatures. I can't see math making the existence of a god impossible, but we can use statistical analysis to show that any god (let alone a specific one like Yahweh) is highly improbable.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 01:53 AM
RE: Math and God
(26-02-2013 04:26 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  In principle if the starting conditions are known then a human can be simulated using fundamental laws of physics, just as any physical object could be. Heywood, are you suggesting that God is physical - that it has laws of physics that govern its behaviour - that it has defined or definable properties we can test to prove whether heshe exists?

If so, what do you propose your God's properties or your God's physics to be?
I'm not suggesting that God is a physical being. What I am suggesting is that if you describe a being in terms of its knowledge and abilities, you could always modify that description to include one more fact or ability(in much the same way you can always add 1 to a number and have a higher number). If all beings could be described with maths you could never have a supreme description. If I were an atheist I might be able to use this line to thinking to formulate an argument against the existence of God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 04:09 AM
RE: Math and God
(26-02-2013 02:19 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(25-02-2013 03:22 AM)Sceptical Prophet Wrote:  If there is a possibility it exists, it can be proven by maths. However, not all things that are mathematically reconcilable are real. Most of the time, when somebody says there's maths suggesting something, it means that there are no mathematical problems preventing the existence of that thing. Whether or not it actually exists is a whole new level.

If you want to use maths to prove god, good luck. That task in itself will be impossible, and even if you managed it, it still wouldn't be solid proof - just proof that if god did exist, it wouldn't be breaking any laws.

I'm not interested in using maths to prove God. The reason I started this thread is because in a conversation with an atheist friend, he mentioned that he thought there was a reasonable possibility the multiverse is real. He didn't think there was a reasonable possibility God is real. I challenged him on this because there isn't a whole lot of evidence for a multiverse. He said his reason for believing in the possibility of a multiverse was because it had a sound mathmatical basis. Thats what got me thinking about if math can be used to describe God.

If math can be used to describe a human being, then it should be able to describe God. If there exist an algorithm or mathematical formula, discovered or not, which describes the workings of a particular human being couldn't that algorithm or formula be modified to include one additional ability or knowledge of one more fact? In principle no matter how able or knowledgeable a being can be, there always exists an algorithm or formula that describes a superior being. Kinda like infinity but instead of adding 1 to the highest number, one more ability or knowledge of a fact is built into the algorithm which describes the supreme being.
That's the thing though, maths can be used to describe a multiverse but it cannot be used to describe god because by definition, god defies mathematics and physics (the two of which are very closely related). A human can be defined because we know the properties of humans and have the evidence of physical specimens to back that up. There is none of that for god.


And even if it were intellectually plausible to ignore the fact that your parameters are untestable (i.e. you assume a definition of god without any proof that definition is correct), you would still run into the paradox I mentioned in my previous post. How do you mathematically define something capable of creating infinities? Is he mathematically greater than infinity? What's the notation for something greater than infinity? Infinity squared is still infinity. This is where your argument falls apart:

Quote:in much the same way you can always add 1 to a number and have a higher number
- Not in the case of infinities.

It's an interesting idea but it falls short. Plus the multiverse theory circumvents a lot of problems (i.e. it answers some hanging questions) whilst being mathematically plausible. There's a lot more evidence for it that you might think.

Science, logic and how they destroy religious arguments @ http://scepticalprophet.wordpress.com/

To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.
- Isaac Asimov.
Faith means not wanting to know what is true.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: