Jump to content

*warning Newb*mathematics Irrelevant To God's Existence *warning Newb*


Recommended Posts

Hi a bit new to the site and to the forums so bear with me. 

 

I recently saw a post from a proud Jew regarding how mathematics proves the existence of god. In the post he gave his detailed mathematical proof and debate ensues over the definitions of infinity and other philosophical concepts regarding said infinity. God was never defined except as the infinite. To which I have heard this argument many times before. However, I find this whole topic interesting in the fact that we can find the origins in religion from this argument. The attempt to prove god by creating an infinite from an equation that you thought of out of your mind only proofs that you can create said concepts yourself. What it does is prove that your idea of god is a self delusion created from yourself. Lets be honest if god were real would he need a hypothetical equation proving a hypothetical number? After all we are not proving god in these types of discussions we are proving a hypothetical number. It is no more real than the thoughts in my head. It proves nothing really. In fact if we look at the whole of math it would never prove god because if god is un measureable then math has no business proving it as lets face it math is the school of counting and measuring. If we are to talk about space and time as the infinite in this regard all we are doing in math is measuring the rate of its expanse not the size and scope of it. Even still if we could prove that the universe is completely and utterly infinite with no end in sight then that is all we have done. It does not and will not ever prove god. The only business math has in proving a god's existence is in the measurement of said god. If god is unmeasurable then why are we using math? I got an answer because your god is theoretical and not real.

 

 

I am sure with my limited lack of knowledge and insight there are probably many errors in my argument however I feel that the concept is there. Whack away if you will because I am growing weary of these asinine math proves god debates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That post sounded a bit like gematria, I got into that once and made the whole astrological system numerically spell T.A.R.O.T looks snazzy on a chart, but it didnt mean anything.

Yeah, I sorta skipped over the idea of there being a self-aware creator "God". I see little or no need for that concept.

You're giving Nat's argument far, far more credit than it deserves. His argument is mathematically false. He thinks that infinity is a number, an this is the sort of misconception that gets cleared up

Hi and welcome yellow.gif

Thats what xtians do, come up with nonsense to proof the existence of god.
And your right, maths has nothing to do with god what so ever. Maths is logic and the belief in a none-existing being with magical powers for wish there is no proof is the opposite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That mathematics post is so ridiculous - I can't even read it anymore.  You are right that mathematics has nothing to do with God.  Their only similarity is that both are man-made.

 

Oh, and welcome to ex-C!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest r3alchild

That post sounded a bit like gematria, I got into that once and made the whole astrological system numerically spell T.A.R.O.T looks snazzy on a chart, but it didnt mean anything.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looked up gematria and I just shook my head lol. reminds me of the people who would decode the bible for prophesy. I mean honestly they are taking a man made language assigning their own numerical system to it and then connecting the dots. Same ..... different day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI James and welcome.  :)  I've been following the aforementioned thread and it has proved very thought provoking for me.  I have to agree with you though.   It had also occurred to me, that if God exists and is this infinite being, how could we try to limit God by fitting 'it' into an equation?  That does seem silly to me.  Nat has opened up other areas of discussion which are proving very interesting and so for me, his thread has been very worthwhile, and maybe it will be for him too??  wink.png  

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh I don't doubt the interesting bits of it I think I managed to get to page 2 or 3 before I posted here. it just occurred to me half way through reading that none of this has to do with god whatsoever except for the fact that it is a proof that his idea of god is only a man made concept. maybe I should just jump back over to that thread and see how its going.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with the idea of trying to fit God into an equation given the nature of mathematics. In fact, I suspect that if it is possible to describe God at all it can only be done with mathematics. But at that point one might well be describing the Multiverse so we would still wind up at a point asking is God needed at all if there is no difference between God and the Multiverse. I think that would be taking Tillich's formulation of God as the ground of being to the ultimate extreme, and one would be hard-pressed to even say it was related to deism, let alone theism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with the idea of trying to fit God into an equation given the nature of mathematics. In fact, I suspect that if it is possible to describe God at all it can only be done with mathematics. But at that point one might well be describing the Multiverse so we would still wind up at a point asking is God needed at all if there is no difference between God and the Multiverse. I think that would be taking Tillich's formulation of God as the ground of being to the ultimate extreme, and one would be hard-pressed to even say it was related to deism, let alone theism.

 

Hmm, I'm sure my ignorance of mathematics prevents me from appreciating the points being made. :( 

I was imagining a 'God' that is an intelligence or 'mind' and thus I couldn't see how that sort of God would be able to be 'explained' by mathematics.  My idea of 'God' as being 'everything in existence' (eternally in existence) could very well be expressed via maths surely?   

 

Thanks for helping me see that Boftx. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I sorta skipped over the idea of there being a self-aware creator "God". I see little or no need for that concept. :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Oh dear! Where is this thread? As a PhD candidate in mathematics, I feel the need to tear it to shreds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator

Another mod locked the thread and the math whiz who started it asked to have his account deleted, so I did it. He was shocked that we didn't learn anything from him.

 

What we did learn from this is that it's not only Christians who are eager to make tortured, nonsensical and irrelevant arguments to prove their suppositions are right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Sweet Dawkins. This person does not know how to speak mathematics properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, what this guy fails to realize is that zero and infinity are ideas invented by humans to help understand our universe. As such, his argument, if valid, would imply that God is also a figment of our imaginations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But at that point one might well be describing the Multiverse so we would still wind up at a point asking is God needed at all if there is no difference between God and the Multiverse. I think that would be taking Tillich's formulation of God as the ground of being to the ultimate extreme, and one would be hard-pressed to even say it was related to deism, let alone theism.

 

My idea of 'God' as being 'everything in existence' (eternally in existence) could very well be expressed via maths surely?   

 

This sounds like pantheism. I don't find this concept useful, except to reassure religious bigots (and perhaps oneself) that one is not an atheist. It’s just taking everything that exists and hanging the label “God” on it.

 

 

Hmm, I'm sure my ignorance of mathematics prevents me from appreciating the points being made. sad.png

 

Don’t worry about it. Nat’s argument is to mathematics as the ontological argument is to logic. Mathematics is a conceptual tool that can be used to describe reality. It cannot be used to instantiate reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But at that point one might well be describing the Multiverse so we would still wind up at a point asking is God needed at all if there is no difference between God and the Multiverse. I think that would be taking Tillich's formulation of God as the ground of being to the ultimate extreme, and one would be hard-pressed to even say it was related to deism, let alone theism.

 

My idea of 'God' as being 'everything in existence' (eternally in existence) could very well be expressed via maths surely?   

 

This sounds like pantheism. I don't find this concept useful, except to reassure religious bigots (and perhaps oneself) that one is not an atheist. It’s just taking everything that exists and hanging the label “God” on it.

 

Well, that may well be, but it could just be a transition from theism to atheism.  Having had a 'theistic' mindset for most of my life means that I can't just 'rearrrange' my mindset and expell all 'hints' of God.  I have to redefine 'God' and realise gradually that 'God' is not what I thought he/it is.  I don't mind taking 'the long way home'.........:)

 

Hmm, I'm sure my ignorance of mathematics prevents me from appreciating the points being made. sad.png

 

Don’t worry about it. Nat’s argument is to mathematics as the ontological argument is to logic. Mathematics is a conceptual tool that can be used to describe reality. It cannot be used to instantiate reality. 

 

I'm not worried but thanks for your comments.  :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But at that point one might well be describing the Multiverse so we would still wind up at a point asking is God needed at all if there is no difference between God and the Multiverse. I think that would be taking Tillich's formulation of God as the ground of being to the ultimate extreme, and one would be hard-pressed to even say it was related to deism, let alone theism.

My idea of 'God' as being 'everything in existence' (eternally in existence) could very well be expressed via maths surely?

This sounds like pantheism. I don't find this concept useful, except to reassure religious bigots (and perhaps oneself) that one is not an atheist. It’s just taking everything that exists and hanging the label “God” on it.

 

Hmm, I'm sure my ignorance of mathematics prevents me from appreciating the points being made. sad.png

Don’t worry about it. Nat’s argument is to mathematics as the ontological argument is to logic. Mathematics is a conceptual tool that can be used to describe reality. It cannot be used to instantiate reality.

You're giving Nat's argument far, far more credit than it deserves. His argument is mathematically false. He thinks that infinity is a number, an this is the sort of misconception that gets cleared up in high school calculus. There's no part of his argument that isn't wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bhim- thanks to your in-depth replies to Nat's 'argument' on the other thread, I was able to get an idea of how wrong Nat's 'math' was... but his argument did fuel much interesting debate.  It's a shame more humility and respect wasn't present when it should have been.  wink.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're giving Nat's argument far, far more credit than it deserves. His argument is mathematically false. He thinks that infinity is a number, an this is the sort of misconception that gets cleared up in high school calculus. There's no part of his argument that isn't wrong.

 

You are correct, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

What this essentially boils down to is an intellectually bankrupt abuse of mathematical language. 

 

I have taken several physics courses in college, so let's look at it from that angle. When we want to model a situation, we make sure to set up a differential equation and solve, making sure that the units are logical and that everything matches up. How does modeling god as infinity work exactly? In calculus, we use infinity as a concept to take limits, derivatives, and integrals. 

 

In any case, in what respect would god be infinite? Cubic meters? Kilograms? Assholes that talk about him? 

 

Our friend might say that the units don't matter. Yes they do! Otherwise the answers you get are just numbers, and your model is meaningless and abstract.

 

Clearly, this model was made hastily and without much thought. There are much more meaningful ways to describe the Big Bang, such as how much energy the initial explosion involved etc.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What this essentially boils down to is an intellectually bankrupt abuse of mathematical language. 

 

I have taken several physics courses in college, so let's look at it from that angle. When we want to model a situation, we make sure to set up a differential equation and solve, making sure that the units are logical and that everything matches up. How does modeling god as infinity work exactly? In calculus, we use infinity as a concept to take limits, derivatives, and integrals. 

 

In any case, in what respect would god be infinite? Cubic meters? Kilograms? Assholes that talk about him? 

 

Our friend might say that the units don't matter. Yes they do! Otherwise the answers you get are just numbers, and your model is meaningless and abstract.

 

Clearly, this model was made hastily and without much thought. There are much more meaningful ways to describe the Big Bang, such as how much energy the initial explosion involved etc.

 

Really, if he had said that infinity is a sort of analogy for God, I wouldn't have objected.  Indeed, Christianity and probably other religions view God as "infinite" from a theological perspective, in the sense of being omnipresent and such.  But Nat didn't simply say that infinity is a helpful tool for understanding God from an intellectual standpoint.  He went forth with this business of dividing by zero, and did not retract his claims when they were reasonably demonstrated to be false (which was easy, since the math he was disputing was at the high-school level).  This is not acceptable, regardless of one's religion or lack of religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read the original topic.I always assumed it would be something "smart" about probabilities of life and creationism but this Wendytwitch.gif  dividing by zero and  calculating with infinity in that way breaks my heart. his arguments are like: "3*infinity=5*infinity, now divide by infinity so we get 3=5"Wendybanghead.gif

but like bhim and hihat already said, there is no point in the assumption that the theological "infinite" can be understood as some kind of mathematical measure. I wish I had been here when the Original topic started. ^^

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, I missed all the fun. Numbers prove God's existence? I always did hate math, LOL! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I don't have a problem with the idea of trying to fit God into an equation given the nature of mathematics. In fact, I suspect that if it is possible to describe God at all it can only be done with mathematics. But at that point one might well be describing the Multiverse so we would still wind up at a point asking is God needed at all if there is no difference between God and the Multiverse. I think that would be taking Tillich's formulation of God as the ground of being to the ultimate extreme, and one would be hard-pressed to even say it was related to deism, let alone theism.

 

I haven't read beyond your post, boftx, in this thread, but I will shortly.  

I tried to participate in the other thread, because division by zero is an operation in mathematics where need for a description of ultimate infinities, concepts of God, appears in its framework.  If a mathematician were to try describing God, division by zero is a great place to start.  

 

Mathematics has as much place attempting to define God as any language, and I agree it's most highly qualified to do it.  But I'm in agreement with the most of you that mathematics can not define God in totality, as authoritative definitions of God elevate God to status "higher" than definition.  Mathematics can describe aspects of God, like any other language.  Each language should have its own ability to describe an indescribable thing with some contribution of its unique perspective.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.