Math and God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-02-2013, 04:30 AM
RE: Math and God
(27-02-2013 04:09 AM)Sceptical Prophet 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.
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.
Infinity is not a number but rather a concept...so how do you add 1 to it or square it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 06:30 AM
RE: Math and God
(27-02-2013 04:30 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Infinity is not a number but rather a concept...so how do you add 1 to it or square it?

If infinity is a concept, and not a number, then how do you use math on a divine being with any attribute that has infinity attached to it (such as omnipotence, omniscience, etc.)?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
27-02-2013, 07:05 AM
RE: Math and God
God is 3 beings in 1 according to Christians, so God= 1 to the third power= 1
Satan's number, or number of the beast is 666, therefore Satan=6 to the third power= 216
There, I just proved that Satan is the dominant character using math LOL

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
[+] 1 user Likes DeathsNotoriousAngel's post
27-02-2013, 08:19 AM
RE: Math and God
(27-02-2013 01:53 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(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.

Of course you aren't proposing that he is made of matter or "universe stuff" in any form. What you are proposing is that he natural - he has a nature. He has definable properties that can be used to predict his behaviour and can be falsified by finding those properties not to apply. You might propose that God answers prayer, but oops prayer studies show that prayer doesn't work. You might propose that God is good and moral, but his commandments in the Bible contradict this idea. Be careful in defining properties for God in a language free from ambiguity. You might find that someone take the ball and runs with it. You might find that the properties you define don't actually exist.

However if what you are saying is that Paeno's axioms say that for each number in the natural number set it is possible to deduce another number such that the output of the deduction is unique to its input... if what you are saying is that maths can conceive an infinity, therefore God exists or even that God could exist I think you are misleading yourself. Infinity and God are by no means interchangeable concepts, and it is unknown whether an infinity can exist in any physical sense (within the universe or not), so even if you do equate the concepts there is no evidence that our ability to conceive a God should imply that such a being could actually exist.

You seem to be dancing around the idea of the Ontological argument. I suggest reading through a thread or two on that subject.

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
27-02-2013, 08:40 AM
RE: Math and God
Returning to the initial argument I don't see how the conclusion follows from the premises. Premise one should read : math can be used to describe ALL things real and imagined. Cf:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

However I don't agree with the amended premise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes sandman's post
27-02-2013, 08:51 AM
RE: Math and God
The only mathematical number that i see corresponding to god is 0.

Zero effect, zero existence,....just zero.

Faith = believing zero has a infinite positive value.
I think that's why jesus was strung up on a + sign

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Rahn127's post
28-02-2013, 01:33 AM
RE: Math and God
(27-02-2013 04:30 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(27-02-2013 04:09 AM)Sceptical Prophet Wrote:  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:

- 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.
Infinity is not a number but rather a concept...so how do you add 1 to it or square it?

(27-02-2013 06:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(27-02-2013 04:30 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Infinity is not a number but rather a concept...so how do you add 1 to it or square it?

If infinity is a concept, and not a number, then how do you use math on a divine being with any attribute that has infinity attached to it (such as omnipotence, omniscience, etc.)?
Yes, that was the point. Infinity is not a number, per se, but there are many things in the universe that are considered infinite. So how would you define god mathematically if all of god's attributes are infinite (i.e. maximally great) but his infinity still has to be bigger than the other infinities in the universe that he supposedly created?

Therefore, no, you cannot describe god mathematically. To do so would be to say he has limitations.

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
28-02-2013, 04:10 PM
RE: Math and God
(28-02-2013 01:33 AM)Sceptical Prophet Wrote:  Yes, that was the point. Infinity is not a number, per se, but there are many things in the universe that are considered infinite. So how would you define god mathematically if all of god's attributes are infinite (i.e. maximally great) but his infinity still has to be bigger than the other infinities in the universe that he supposedly created?

Therefore, no, you cannot describe god mathematically. To do so would be to say he has limitations.

I think there is a way to overcome this criticism but that discussion is for another thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 04:16 PM
RE: Math and God
(28-02-2013 04:10 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-02-2013 01:33 AM)Sceptical Prophet Wrote:  Yes, that was the point. Infinity is not a number, per se, but there are many things in the universe that are considered infinite. So how would you define god mathematically if all of god's attributes are infinite (i.e. maximally great) but his infinity still has to be bigger than the other infinities in the universe that he supposedly created?

Therefore, no, you cannot describe god mathematically. To do so would be to say he has limitations.

I think there is a way to overcome this criticism but that discussion is for another thread.

How is it for another thread? This is the thread you created "Math and God"

Infinity is a concept in math. Therefore this applies to the original thread.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
28-02-2013, 04:40 PM
RE: Math and God
I would like to make one distinction to clarify infinity. Infinity is used in mathematical theory, which gives you the conceptual infinity, and engineering/science, which gives you a definable infinity that can have real world applications. The latter come in the forms of limits and summations. There's the nerdy joke about the infinite mathematicians going to the bar, each one orders a drink half the size of the drink before (1, 0.5, 0.25, etc), the bartender grows tired of this and simply pours two beers and gives them their bill.

If you wished to move a mathematical god out of a hypothetical existence and into a more practical and observable existence, his attributes must eventually approach a point where an incremental increase in his attributes yields a minuscule change in its magnitude. Without approaching a limit (ie, the two beers from an infinite number of smaller drinks) that infinity cannot hope to ever be considered more than a hypothesis.

Of all the ideas put forth by science, it is the principle of Superposition that can undo any power of the gods. For the accumulation of smaller actions has the ability to create, destroy, and move the world.

"I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." -W. E. Henley
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: