Can Math Prove God?

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 114
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
I don't personally believe that anything can prove a God, so therefore the title is just an eye catcher. But in my opinion, math is a very big indicator of a God. 

Math and science. Science helps us humans to explain the natural world, but it cannot help us explain things that are outside of the natural world. How do we know that there is something outside of our natural world? Well it is pretty obvious that the natural world had a beginning, (whether or not you believe in the multiverse might I add). And in order for something to have a beginning, it has to have a cause. And in order for something to create the natural world, it has to have supernatural abilities. So we do know there is something outside of our natural world. Supernatural would be the definition of that. So, science cannot tell us if there is anything supernatural, but it can explain the natural world.

Usually when people are talking about God, they are talking about the supernatural (above nature), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (exists everywhere), omnipotent (can do anything). So, what is math, and what does it have to do with God? 

Math is about numbers, and information about those numbers, and ways that these numbers connect with each other. But where do we find math, in the natural world? We can’t see math, we can’t touch math, we can’t taste math, we can’t smell math, and we can’t hear math. Math is only in the mind. We find math simply by thinking about it and finding more and more things out. 

Math also explains things. Math can explain things varying from simple counting to the movement of planets. For any “thing” you can think of, there is a bunch of math that explains what's going on, even down to the atomic level. So, if math is only in our minds, yet it explains the natural world, then where does it come from? 

There are 2 possibilities: 
  1. Math is something that humans invented to explain what we observe in the natural world. 
  2. We discovered math because it controls the universe.
The first option would define math a natural thing, and the second would define math as a supernatural thing. 

Here is why the second option is correct:
Math contains infinite information. There are an infinite number of numbers, each with their own individual properties. And there are an infinite number of numbers in between those numbers. And we continue to discover things.

Pi, which is the number that explains the area of a circle. Pi has an infinite number of digits that we can discover by using calculations. If we were just making this stuff up, we could just make Pi be whatever we want it to be, but we can’t do that because we know that that is not true. 

We know that all this information is out there somewhere, but it cannot be inside our physical universe because our universe is finite, and math is infinite. That means math contains every possible combination of numbers. If we use numbers as code for letters, then math contains every possible combination of letters as well. 

This means that every book that has ever been written already exists encoded in math somewhere, and in fact every book that could possibly ever be written already exists in math. And if we use numbers as code for particles and their locations, then you could theoretically say that there is an exact copy of our universe encoded in math, but there are even more things in math, so that is why math cannot be contained just within our universe. 


There is also a lot of evidence showing that math has a designer. A great example of this is the Mandelbrot Set. The equation looks like this:
z=z(squared) + c
Now this little equation makes a very interesting shape when you graph it in the complex plane. People have analyzed this shape and have found some very scary things about it. 
The amazing thing about the Mandelbrot Set is that you can keep zooming in infinitely and keep finding new things, like more copies of the mandelbrot set shown here:

You can zoom in infinitely and find new and different shapes, and patterns, sometimes ones that no human has ever seen before in this one shape. This is why it is so scary. We didn’t invent this because we discovered it by accident, but we didn’t discover it in our universe, because it has infinite complexity so it can’t possibly be in our universe, because the universe doesn’t have infinites. We discovered it just by calculating it. So where did this thing come from? 

Basic common sense would say that someone designed this, but no human designed it. Like we said: 

  • Math only exists in the mind so its origin must also be a mind.

  • Math contains infinite information, so this mind must be all knowing.

  • Math controls the universe and must also be all powerful.

  • Math is beyond and outside of our natural world, so this mind must be supernatural. 

And right here, we have just described God. 


Now, I am aware that there are significant logical leaps in the argument presented, but I think it makes a good case.
What do you all think? 


Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,356
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Ah the classical,

"I cant explain this, so God is an explanation" fallacy.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Basic common sense would say that someone designed this, but no human designed it. Like we said: 

  • Math only exists in the mind so its origin must also be a mind.

  • Math contains infinite information, so this mind must be all knowing.

  • Math controls the universe and must also be all powerful.

  • Math is beyond and outside of our natural world, so this mind must be supernatural. 

And right here, we have just described God. 
Excellent! This is the reason materialistic atheists are hypocrites. They're just substituting one god for another.

YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Best.Korea
"I cant explain this, so God is an explanation" fallacy.
It's really not though. 
It is tying the complexity of Math, and instead of saying," I don't know where it came from so it must be God" I am saying instead:
Math's origins have to come outside of our natural world, from a mind, that is all knowing and all powerful. 

Basically, painting a picture of God. 

YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
Excellent! This is the reason materialistic atheists are hypocrites. They're just substituting one god for another.
Thats is exactly true. They try to make a naturalistic explanation for everything, but in doing that come to a definition of something that can be described as God. 

Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,356
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Basically, painting a picture of God
You mean painting an assumption of your specific God.
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Best.Korea
You mean painting an assumption of your specific God.
No. Painting a picture, using the logical evidence. 
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,356
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Okay, so it doesnt prove your God.
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Best.Korea
Okay, so it doesnt prove your God.
True. But it helps to argue a God. 
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,428
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@YouFound_Lxam

Albert Einstein's greatest contribution to math was in what is known as ''Einstein's Field Equations. '' These are equations created by Einstein that show how stress-energy influence movement in the study of space and time. The equations Einstein created fall under the study of calculus and geometry.
Einstein said in 1954, one year before he died, “The word God is for me nothing but the expression of and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends,” the message reads. “No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.”
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,428
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@YouFound_Lxam

Stephen Hawking was an American scientist who made outstanding contributions to mathematics through his work on black holes and the mathematics of space-time. The formula he discovered specifies the area of a sphere that is contained in a three-dimensional volume in four dimensions.
He says, " It’s my view that the simplest explanation is that there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization: there is probably no heaven and afterlife either. I think belief in an afterlife is just wishful thinking. There is no reliable evidence for it, and it flies in the face of everything we know in science. I think that when we die we return to dust. "
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@FLRW
Both theoretical physicists had opposing views of God. So who's right, especially considering that you're attempting to appeal to their authorities?
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,997
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Any relative hypothesis can be described as GOD.

As GOD principle is sound.

And GOD is a common label.

Alan is also popular.

And collapse and rebirth can be numerically represented.

But will anything be counting?


Atheists tend to be less accepting of mythological hypotheses wherein Man simply invents GODS in the image of himself. 

Atheists do not necessarily dismiss the GOD principle.


Theist/deist is generally used to describe a believer in one of various popular MANGOD inventions.

Though an atheist could be regarded as a deist, in so much as the definition of a supreme being is open to interpretation.

Whereas theists often have an accompanying book.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,428
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Athias

It’s my view that the simplest explanation is that there is no God.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@FLRW
So Einstein's wrong?
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,356
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
True. But it helps to argue a God
True. I will use it as an argument for Lucifer, the true God.

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Any relative hypothesis can be described as GOD.

As GOD principle is sound.

And GOD is a common label.

Alan is also popular.

And collapse and rebirth can be numerically represented.

But will anything be counting?


Atheists tend to be less accepting of mythological hypotheses wherein Man simply invents GODS in the image of himself. 

Atheists do not necessarily dismiss the GOD principle.


Theist/deist is generally used to describe a believer in one of various popular MANGOD inventions.

Though an atheist could be regarded as a deist, in so much as the definition of a supreme being is open to interpretation.

Whereas theists often have an accompanying book.
So your contention isn't against a "God," but it's anthropomorphic representation?

YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@FLRW
Albert Einstein's greatest contribution to math was in what is known as ''Einstein's Field Equations. '' These are equations created by Einstein that show how stress-energy influence movement in the study of space and time. The equations Einstein created fall under the study of calculus and geometry.
Einstein said in 1954, one year before he died, “The word God is for me nothing but the expression of and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends,” the message reads. “No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.”
Albert Einstein also made mistakes and was not the official authority of math. This is just an opinion. He even says," for me " in that quote. 
Also, Einstein says that the Bible is just legends but fails to understand that the Bible is the most historically accurate book in the world. 
But he was extremely smart and influential, so credit is given to where its due

Stephen Hawking was an American scientist who made outstanding contributions to mathematics through his work on black holes and the mathematics of space-time. The formula he discovered specifies the area of a sphere that is contained in a three-dimensional volume in four dimensions.
He says, " It’s my view that the simplest explanation is that there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization: there is probably no heaven and afterlife either. I think belief in an afterlife is just wishful thinking. There is no reliable evidence for it, and it flies in the face of everything we know in science. I think that when we die we return to dust. "
Same goes with Stephen Hawking, and somehow, even worse than Einsteins opinion, because there are loads of reliable evidence for God, and it doesn't fly off the face of science in any way. 
But he was also very smart and influential, so you know, point taken. 


YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Best.Korea
True. I will use it as an argument for Lucifer, the true God.
Ok.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,428
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Athias


The word God is for me nothing but the expression of and product of human weaknesses.
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
As GOD principle is sound.
I agree. 

Atheists tend to be less accepting of mythological hypotheses wherein Man simply invents GODS in the image of himself. 
Not necessarily. 
Man takes the design of the universe and give credit to something not of themselves. 
Atheists just say its dumb luck. 

What's more reasonable. 
Moral beings that are created from a moral being?
Or Moral beings that evolve from a sludge puddle? 

Atheists do not necessarily dismiss the GOD principle.
They don't deny the principle, but they contradict themselves when explaining everything with a naturalistic origin, and claim it is the only origin. 


FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,428
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea

See you at LUX !
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@FLRW
"I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

- Albert Einstein

How is Albert Einstein immune from zedvictor's criticism especially considering that he personifies Spinoza's God?


zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,997
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Anthropomorphic

Nice word, though not necessarily my contention.

My contention is that GOD as a representative label is fine and commonplace though does not necessarily require accompanying  human characteristics.

Though what constitutes human characteristics is open interpretation I suppose.

Nonetheless, tales of an actual floaty about magical bloke, won't cut the mustard as far as I am concerned.

Which isn't to say that actual floaty about blokes are not a reasonable hypothesis.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,428
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Athias

Einstein said your quote in 1921.  He said, The word God is for me nothing but the expression of and product of human weaknesses in 1954.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,356
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
Smart people are atheists.

Or to quote Iwantroosevelt again:

"Being religious is not exactly a sign of intelligence".
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,428
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea

Yes, various studies have found that, on average, belief in God is associated with lower scores on IQ tests. "It is well established that religiosity correlates inversely with intelligence," note Richard Daws and Adam Hampshire at Imperial College London.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
So Einstein was more an authority on the subject at 75 than he was at 42? Explain.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,356
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
Crime is also associated with religion.

Atheists make 3% of general population, but only 0.1% of prison population.

Religious people make 99.9% of the prison population.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,428
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Athias

Yes, he learned a lot in 33 years.