Mathematical Proof Of God

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

 

 

 I call it God. You can call it what you want.  You can decide for yourself what it is, but it isn't made of matter. 

 

 

 

 

 nat, do you call 'it' God? But arent' you a proud Jew? So your god must be old testament god? Am I wrong? And we who make up our own version of 'god'...are we saved....will we go to heaven? Will our god love us the same as 'it' loves you?

 

Yes, I believe in the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. All good people go to heaven. I'm not sure how much God demands about how much you know of his history as recorded. Hard to say, but God most likely has different expectations from different people depending on their circumstance. The best thing is to be good, honest and humble. Seek with honesty and hope for the best.

[Margee]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 I call it God. You can call it what you want.  You can decide for yourself what it is, but it isn't made of matter. 

 

 

 

 

 nat, do you call 'it' God? But arent' you a proud Jew? So your god must be old testament god? Am I wrong? And we who make up our own version of 'god'...are we saved....will we go to heaven? Will our god love us the same as 'it' loves you?

 

Yes, I believe in the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. All good people go to heaven. I'm not sure how much God demands about how much you know of his history as recorded. Hard to say,  The best thing is to be good, honest and humble. Seek with honesty and hope for the best.

 

 

.....hope for the best? does that mean I may go to hell if 'he' decides I'm not good enough? Does the Jewish religion believe in hell nat?

[Guest nat]

There is a point I think some are missing. Not knowing is one thing. Mathematically proving that there is something that is not possible to know is another. We can't understand the infinite. It is not possible. That is humbling. There is something infinite out there that combined with nothing and that is how matter came into existence. We will not be able to discover what the infinite is or relate to it in any way. And it makes no demands on you at all. Logic and math just dictate that it is there. Call it what you want, but it is not spaghetti, because spaghetti is matter and matter is not infinite.

 

The demands of the bible for a moral life do not stem directly from the completely infinite God. They stem from his definitions of himself which are not infinite. This is a whole different story, which i was not discussing here.

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 I call it God. You can call it what you want.  You can decide for yourself what it is, but it isn't made of matter. 

 

 

 

 

 nat, do you call 'it' God? But arent' you a proud Jew? So your god must be old testament god? Am I wrong? And we who make up our own version of 'god'...are we saved....will we go to heaven? Will our god love us the same as 'it' loves you?

 

Yes, I believe in the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. All good people go to heaven. I'm not sure how much God demands about how much you know of his history as recorded. Hard to say,  The best thing is to be good, honest and humble. Seek with honesty and hope for the best.

 

 

.....hope for the best? does that mean I may go to hell if 'he' decides I'm not good enough? Does the Jewish religion believe in hell nat?

 

No one knows how good they are. Always try your best and be humble and good. 

 

For my view of heaven, hell, and sin, as seen in the Talmud look below in particular post #7.

See Christianity And Sin Issues 

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

Prove what?

 

Infinity/2=infinity. Anyone who knows math knows that.

 

Flying spagetti monster/2=1/2 flying spaghetti monster.

Prove that you can divide the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  He is infinite and indivisible because I believe that he is infinite in all ways.

 

I am well aware that infinity / 2 = infinity.

 

The point I am trying to make is that in a mathematical proof, you must be able to defend each step of the proof.  You make a GIANT leap when you say that God is the infinite just because you believe it to be so.  You are using circular logic if you are trying to define God as infinite, then applying mathematical calculations using infinity to 'prove' its existence.

 

You miss my point. I am showing that there is something infinite out there. I call it God. You can call it what you want. There is infinity to the past and there is infinity to the future. Matter cannot be infinite because it can be divided. Matter was not there for infinity. The infinite is undefined, unknowable. I call it God. There is something infinite out there. You can decide for yourself what it is, but it isn't made of matter. 

Infinity times nothing is not nothing. You take nothing an infinite amount of times, you don't get nothing. That is a mathematical fact. How can it be? It can be because we don't know what infinity is, so we can't understand its affect on nothing.

infinity times nothing is undetermined, not undefined. Infinity times nothing can be this or that or anything.

Infinity is the boundless extreme on one end. Nothing is the extreme on the other end. Between the two can be anything.

This is the only way to explain how matter came into existence.

 

Nat, you may be interested in delving more into past discussions of infinity and the infinite.  As I suggested earlier, these are important concepts in ancient Greek thought.  Anaximander, for example, held some sort of thesis that the what is most basic is "to apeiron," which is usually translated, "the infinite."  Thinkers like Plato and his followers contrasted matter, which they spoke of as infinite insofar as it's unlimited, with mind, or even, the One, by which matter is limited and can exist as things.  Aristotle did a lot of work in the Metaphysics and elsewhere on distinguishing a potential infinite (e.g. the FSM can potentially be divided an infinite number of times) to an actual infinite, which he denied can exist.  Maimonides picked up on this in his discussion of proofs for God, as did Islamic philosophers (the notorious Kalam cosmological proof of God relies on denying that there can be an actual infinite).  I don't know about the Kabbalah.  Anyway, I think "infinite" needs a lot of unpacking!

[midniterider]

There is a point I think some are missing. Not knowing is one thing. Mathematically proving that there is something that is not possible to know is another. We can't understand the infinite. It is not possible. That is humbling. There is something infinite out there that combined with nothing and that is how matter came into existence. We will not be able to discover what the infinite is or relate to it in any way. And it makes no demands on you at all. Logic and math just dictate that it is there. Call it what you want, but it is not spaghetti, because spaghetti is matter and matter is not infinite.

 

The demands of the bible for a moral life do not stem directly from the completely infinite God. They stem from his definitions of himself which are not infinite. This is a whole different story, which i was not discussing here.

 

If it makes no demands on me then why is it important?

[midniterider]

There is a point I think some are missing. Not knowing is one thing. Mathematically proving that there is something that is not possible to know is another. We can't understand the infinite. It is not possible. That is humbling. There is something infinite out there that combined with nothing and that is how matter came into existence. We will not be able to discover what the infinite is or relate to it in any way. And it makes no demands on you at all. Logic and math just dictate that it is there. Call it what you want, but it is not spaghetti, because spaghetti is matter and matter is not infinite.

 

The demands of the bible for a moral life do not stem directly from the completely infinite God. They stem from his definitions of himself which are not infinite. This is a whole different story, which i was not discussing here.

 

" Mathematically proving that there is something that is not possible to know is another."

 

If I cant know it how can I prove it mathematically? Proving something mathematically would produce knowledge of the unknowable thing, right?

 

Zzt Zzt! [brain shorts out from logical contradiction...turns into a religious person.]

[midniterider]

There is a point I think some are missing. Not knowing is one thing. Mathematically proving that there is something that is not possible to know is another. We can't understand the infinite. It is not possible. That is humbling. There is something infinite out there that combined with nothing and that is how matter came into existence. We will not be able to discover what the infinite is or relate to it in any way. And it makes no demands on you at all. Logic and math just dictate that it is there. Call it what you want, but it is not spaghetti, because spaghetti is matter and matter is not infinite.

 

The demands of the bible for a moral life do not stem directly from the completely infinite God. They stem from his definitions of himself which are not infinite. This is a whole different story, which i was not discussing here.

 

At least we wont hear you say "Hey, that's just old testament stuff so you can disregard it..."

[Thought2Much]

I already said that I can't debate this on the advanced level. I will leave that for others.

 

What, you thought that everybody would look at your original post and say, "Wow! He's right! How could I have been so wrong? God does exist!" and that you wouldn't have to say anything else? Why bring up the argument if you couldn't back it up either yourself or with other resources?

[boftx]

I probably shouldn't laugh, but this really is amusing while being very refreshing at the same time. The refreshing part is that unless I am badly mistaken nat couldn't care less if he converts anyone to Judaism.

 

That makes this a reasonable exchange of opinions instead of a slugfest.

[midniterider]

I probably shouldn't laugh, but this really is amusing while being very refreshing at the same time. The refreshing part is that unless I am badly mistaken nat couldn't care less if he converts anyone to Judaism.

 

That makes this a reasonable exchange of opinions instead of a slugfest.

 

Good point. lol.

[skepticalme]

Note:

 

The site is calling me an authentic christian believer. I am not!!!

I am a proud Jew!!!

 

Infinity and zero  are opposites, but both are transcendental opposite forces, the eternal versus the void. Mathematically, infinity and zero have unusual qualities. Unlike standard numbers, zero times or divided by any number is still zero, and infinity times or divided by any number is still infinity.

What happens when you divide by zero? The closer the denominator gets to zero, the bigger the result. Division by 0 seems to produce infinity. Conventional mathematics says that division by zero is undefined. Infinity, likewise, cannot be defined, so undefined and equals infinity may actually be the same thing. There is more of a consensus, though, that any number divided by infinity equals zero. Since 6/3=2 and 6/2=3, it is logical that any number/infinity=0 and any number/0=infinity.

There is an exception to the 0*x=0 and infinity*x=infinity rule. Since any number/infinity=0, and any number/0=infinity, it follows that infinity*0=any number. And since any number*0=0 and any number*infinity=infinity, it follows that 0/0 and infinity/infinity=any number. Conventional mathematics indeed considers these to be undetermined, meaning that it could be anything.

What does all this mean? God is the infinite. The opposite of God is nothing. Judaism teaches that God made this world from nothing. God*0=all things.

 

And that is the mathematical proof to God.

Thank you.

It seems to me that a mathmatical paradox is pretty far from proof of god.  The universe is anything but infinite or zero, it had a finite beginning (the Big Bang) therfore a finite quantity of mass/energy.  The only thing that can contain infinity, is infinity.  So if the universe had a beginning (not eternal), it is not infinite.

[bornagainathiest]

Perhaps this will be of help re: defining what Infinity is or isn't and what the Infinite is or isn't?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor

 

"The actual infinite arises in three contexts: first when it is realized in the most complete form, in a fully independent other-worldly being, in Deo, where I call it the Absolute Infinite or simply Absolute; second when it occurs in the contingent, created world; third when the mind grasps it in abstracto as a mathematical magnitude, number, or order type.  I wish to make a sharp contrast between the Absolute and what I call the Transfinite, that is the actual infinities of the last two sorts, which are clearly limited, subject to further increase, and thus related to the finite."

Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 1932.

 

So, if I understand Cantor's position correctly, he might say that Nat's proposition is fatally flawed. Nat presents a line of mathematical argument and then changes gear at this point, by asking...

"What does all this mean? God is the infinite. The opposite of God is nothing. Judaism teaches that God made this world from nothing. God*0=all things.  And that is the mathematical proof to God. Thank you."

 

Cantor might say that this change represents a shift from the third class of infinity (in abstracto) to the first (in Deo) and that these two definitions of infinity cannot be compared in this way.  Abstract human concepts of the infinite cannot be coherently compared to the Absolute Infinite represented by God. 

 

The first (In Deo) is unknowable and incomprehensible, while the third (in abstracto) is not. 

In Deo is not equal to, divisible by, less than or greater than In abstracto.

In Deo cannot be linked to, related to or connected to In abstracto.

In abstracto (being a function of the limited human mind) cannot be used to say anything coherent or meaningful about the absolute and unlimited In Deo, because the mind is simply not up to the job.

 

You can only prove what is knowable by the human mind and you cannot prove what you cannot know.

 

Thus, a mathematical proof of God is impossible. 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Nat,

 

Please note that I'm playing devil's advocate here and arguing the case from what I think Cantor's p.o.v. would be, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest nat]

 

I already said that I can't debate this on the advanced level. I will leave that for others.

 

What, you thought that everybody would look at your original post and say, "Wow! He's right! How could I have been so wrong? God does exist!" and that you wouldn't have to say anything else? Why bring up the argument if you couldn't back it up either yourself or with other resources?

 

I can and have defended the math and the logic. It's just when people bring up very high level of math, I cant argue on that level. 

 

The simple fact is that science never did and can't explain how matter got there in the first place. They can only say what happened afterward. People ask then how did god get there. So we have to say that something was always there and that is exactly my point.

 

What was always there? Always there means that it was infinite. It can't be matter because matter is not infinite as it can be divided. Something infinite was always there. Infinity cannot be defined. Something unknowable was always there. You can't avoid it. I call the infinite source God. You can call it what you want.

 

How did matter get there? Infinity times zero is not nothing. It is undetermined. It can be anything. infinity times 0 can equal one or two or anything else.

 

Not trying to convert anyone. Just ideas here. Nothing more. I should care more, but I don't.

[roadrunner]

 

Infinity and zero  are opposites, but both are transcendental opposite forces, ........

 

wrong actually zero is neutral. Infinity has an opposite of negative infinity. Thats as far as i got in your post. sorry

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

I already said that I can't debate this on the advanced level. I will leave that for others.

 

What, you thought that everybody would look at your original post and say, "Wow! He's right! How could I have been so wrong? God does exist!" and that you wouldn't have to say anything else? Why bring up the argument if you couldn't back it up either yourself or with other resources?

 

 

 

What was always there? Always there means that it was infinite. It can't be matter because matter is not infinite as it can be divided.

 

Not at all sure about the bolded part.  

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I already said that I can't debate this on the advanced level. I will leave that for others.

 

What, you thought that everybody would look at your original post and say, "Wow! He's right! How could I have been so wrong? God does exist!" and that you wouldn't have to say anything else? Why bring up the argument if you couldn't back it up either yourself or with other resources?

 

I can and have defended the math and the logic. It's just when people bring up very high level of math, I cant argue on that level. 

 

The simple fact is that science never did and can't explain how matter got there in the first place. They can only say what happened afterward. People ask then how did god get there. So we have to say that something was always there and that is exactly my point.

 

What was always there? Always there means that it was infinite. It can't be matter because matter is not infinite as it can be divided. Something infinite was always there. Infinity cannot be defined. Something unknowable was always there. You can't avoid it. I call the infinite source God. You can call it what you want.

 

How did matter get there? Infinity times zero is not nothing. It is undetermined. It can be anything. infinity times 0 can equal one or two or anything else.

 

Not trying to convert anyone. Just ideas here. Nothing more. I should care more, but I don't.

 

 

The simple fact is that science never did and can't explain how matter got there in the first place.

 

 

 Nat,

 

Please let me bring you up to date.

 

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-109

The Planck satellite data has confirmed that Andrei Linde's model of Chaotic Inflation is the one that best fits the data.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

"Eternal Inflation is an inflationary universe model, which is itself an outgrowth or extension of the Big Bang theory. In theories of eternal inflation, the inflationary phase of the universe's expansion lasts forever in at least some regions of the universe. Because these regions expand exponentially rapidly, most of the volume of the universe at any given time is inflating. All models of eternal inflation produce an infinite multiverse, typically a fractal."

.

 

In 1986, Linde published an alternative model of inflation that also reproduced the same successes of new inflation entitled "Eternally Existing Self-Reproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe",^[7] which provides a detailed description of what has become known as the Chaotic Inflation theory or eternal inflation. The Chaotic Inflation theory is in some ways similar to Fred Hoyle’s steady state theory, as it employs the metaphor of a universe that is eternally existing, and thus does not require a unique beginning or an ultimate end of the cosmos.

 

Nat, it's currently impossible to say if Linde is right or wrong about the Multiverse being eternal (without beginning and without end), but what cannot be avoided is correctly applying the Cosmological Principle to ourselves, in the light of this new paradigm.  When we do this, we find that the question, 'Where does matter come from?' is radically changed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

"The cosmological principle contains three implicit qualifications and two testable consequences. The first implicit qualification is that "observers" means any observer at any location in the universe, not simply any human observer at any location on Earth: as Andrew Liddle puts it, "the cosmological principle [means that] the universe looks the same whoever and wherever you are."

 

We humans are observers.

Any intelligent beings, located anywhere else in the Multiverse are also observers, sharing exactly the same status as us.  No observer can be accorded a different status to any other.  Therefore, no observer can categorically claim that they inhabit the first universe - the one that began the exponentially accellerating process of chaotic inflation.  If it did actually have a beginning.  Therefore, the question, 'Where does matter come from?' should be changed to read, 'Where does our universe come from?'  The answer to that question requires a complete re-think of the entire issue.

 

Our universe is part of a greater (and possibly eternal) ensemble of universes, referred to collectively, as the Multiverse.  Our place within the Multiverse is impossible to define because every observer (including us) will observe their own universe springing into existence from an infinitely-dense gravitational singularity.  Each observer will also observe their own 'Big Bang' and each observer will may be tempted to conclude that theirs is the one and only universe that exists. However, that would be a false conclusion to draw.  Just as no observer can claim the status of 'first and original' for themselves, no observer can claim the status of  'one and only' for themselves.  Both conclusions violate the Cosmological Principle. 

 

Also, Linde's model is self-reproducing - so our universe gave rise to others and they in turn spawned others and these gave birth to still more, on and on and on, possibly without end.  Likewise, our universe was the product of an earlier one and it was derived from ones preceding it, back thru the aeons, possibly without end.

 

Here is Linde's 1986 paper.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1402-4896/1987/T15/024/

 

Here is a much more accessible Scientific American article about chaotic inflation from 1998.

http://mukto-mona.net/science/physics/Inflation_lself_prod_inde.pdf

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

Btw,

What does the acronym O.O.L. mean to you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

[stryper]

Sorta weird but I did some calculations on Excel....

 

It said God + Church + Scripture  = Baloney

 

 

That is total unfair to Baloney.    Now if you had said SPAM!.....

 

[midniterider]

 

 

I already said that I can't debate this on the advanced level. I will leave that for others.

 

What, you thought that everybody would look at your original post and say, "Wow! He's right! How could I have been so wrong? God does exist!" and that you wouldn't have to say anything else? Why bring up the argument if you couldn't back it up either yourself or with other resources?

 

I can and have defended the math and the logic. It's just when people bring up very high level of math, I cant argue on that level. 

 

The simple fact is that science never did and can't explain how matter got there in the first place. They can only say what happened afterward. People ask then how did god get there. So we have to say that something was always there and that is exactly my point.

 

What was always there? Always there means that it was infinite. It can't be matter because matter is not infinite as it can be divided. Something infinite was always there. Infinity cannot be defined. Something unknowable was always there. You can't avoid it. I call the infinite source God. You can call it what you want.

 

How did matter get there? Infinity times zero is not nothing. It is undetermined. It can be anything. infinity times 0 can equal one or two or anything else.

 

Not trying to convert anyone. Just ideas here. Nothing more. I should care more, but I don't.

 

 

"Infinity times zero is not nothing. It is undetermined. It can be anything."

 

Can it be cheese?

[Skankboy]

 

Matter cannot be infinite because it can be divided.

 

Matter = energy (e=mc2) - energy can be divided infinitely, therefore matter can be too!

 

See - easy peasey

[Skankboy]

In fact - the distance between me and computer screen is infinite!

 

Take distance between me and PC screen and divide in half.  Now that that number and divide in half, and then that number and the next and so on and so on. 

 

Technically my PC screen is an infinite distance away!  But I can still see it?

[Ravenstar]

I think the whole thing shows that 'god' seems to be a placeholder for that which we just don't understand. Infinity and absolute are not descriptors... they describe NOTHING in reality... just holding a spot for where WE DON'T KNOW.. and REALLY REALLY UNIMAGINABLY BIG BEYOND OUR ABILITY TO COMPREHEND. If it's that ALL OF EVERYTHING then it kind of loses it's meaning, doesn't it?

 

Like absolute zero.. does it actually exist in nature?, or is it a marker to measure from?  If the universe has a thermal register dating from the BB - then it doesn't, at least not in our little patch of reality. Theoretically?, sure... in virtual reality (quantum gas, for example) but.. the point is that the imagination is the only thing that I've seen that seems infinite.

 

It's philosophy, not science.

 

That's what I got out of the exchange, anyway.

 

The god of the bible does not exist.. and if it did we should hunt it down and kill it. Sorry - that's my conclusion from reading the OT.

[bornagainathiest]

In fact - the distance between me and computer screen is infinite!

 

Take distance between me and PC screen and divide in half.  Now that that number and divide in half, and then that number and the next and so on and so on. 

 

Technically my PC screen is an infinite distance away!  But I can still see it?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Achilles never caught that tortoise!  heh heh

[Guest nat]

 

Note:

 

The site is calling me an authentic christian believer. I am not!!!

I am a proud Jew!!!

 

Infinity and zero  are opposites, but both are transcendental opposite forces, the eternal versus the void. Mathematically, infinity and zero have unusual qualities. Unlike standard numbers, zero times or divided by any number is still zero, and infinity times or divided by any number is still infinity.

What happens when you divide by zero? The closer the denominator gets to zero, the bigger the result. Division by 0 seems to produce infinity. Conventional mathematics says that division by zero is undefined. Infinity, likewise, cannot be defined, so undefined and equals infinity may actually be the same thing. There is more of a consensus, though, that any number divided by infinity equals zero. Since 6/3=2 and 6/2=3, it is logical that any number/infinity=0 and any number/0=infinity.

There is an exception to the 0*x=0 and infinity*x=infinity rule. Since any number/infinity=0, and any number/0=infinity, it follows that infinity*0=any number. And since any number*0=0 and any number*infinity=infinity, it follows that 0/0 and infinity/infinity=any number. Conventional mathematics indeed considers these to be undetermined, meaning that it could be anything.

What does all this mean? God is the infinite. The opposite of God is nothing. Judaism teaches that God made this world from nothing. God*0=all things.

 

And that is the mathematical proof to God.

Thank you.

It seems to me that a mathmatical paradox is pretty far from proof of god.  The universe is anything but infinite or zero, it had a finite beginning (the Big Bang) therfore a finite quantity of mass/energy.  The only thing that can contain infinity, is infinity.  So if the universe had a beginning (not eternal), it is not infinite.

 

There had to be something before the big bang, no? Things don't spontaneously generate.