-->
@Best.Korea
Do you think you got smarter when you became an atheist?Yes.
If you became a Christian again, would you get dumber?
Can Math Prove God?
Posts
Total:
114
-->
@Sidewalker
If you became a Christian again, would you get dumber?
Yes. Christianity destroys brain cells.
-->
@Athias
Math doesn't "exist" in any sense of the word, nor is it a product of anything.Then how does that which does not exist interact with that which does exist without unilateral or "co-"dependency?
It doesn't "interact". It is an observable quality of existence, and is no more explainable than existence itself.
so when you argue that math comes from God you are arguing that logic also comes from God, which is incoherent.Not really.
Yes, really.
If math is an extension of logic (which you agree with) than the two are tied together by definition, so attributing one to God necessarily attributes the other.
I assume then that you are claiming it is coherent to claim logic comes from God, but it's absolutely not.
- In order for it to come from God that would mean God came first
- This means there was a point in which there was a God but no logic
- This means it is possible for something to exist without being subject to logic
- This means it is possible for something to be what it is and not be what it is at the same time in the same sense.
That's incoherent.
if we presuppose that logic does come from God, would he not be subject to it?
That's what it means, which is incoherent. See above.
Nope, humans invented it. Abstracts according to materialist standards don't "exist" in nature; "discovery" implies observation, where as abstracts, like logic and mathematics, imply conception.
2+2=4 was true long before humans came along. We didn't create that, we observed that it was true and then created words to express it. That's called discovery.
According to materialist standards, the laws of physics control the universe; and EVERY PHYSICAL LAW MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN. In that sense, in concordance with materialist description, math does control the universe.
Words have meaning. The universe and everything in it is subject to the laws of physics and math. That is not what it means for something to be controlled. This is a silly semantic point.
Why is his being the origin of logic and being subject to logic mutually exclusive?
I think I answered this above.
-->
@FLRW
@Sidewalker
@YouFound_Lxam
..."To translate between superficially incommensurate things, you need to find common ground. One way to do that for objects like L-functions and periods, which originate in number theory, is to associate them with geometric objects."...
...“[Akshay and Yiannis] had been pushing in a direction where they’d started to see things in symplectic geometry, and that rang various bells for me,” Ben-Zvi said.
The next step came from physics....
...over the course of a couple months they worked out how to interpret data extracted from L-functions as a recipe for constructing Hamiltonian Ğ-spaces. In the picture they established, the duality between periods and L-functions translates into a geometric duality that makes sense within the geometric Langlands program and originates in the duality between electricity and magnetism. Physics and arithmetic become echoes of each other, in a way that echoes across the Langlands program.
“You might say that the original Langlands setting is now a special case of this new framework,” Gan said.
By unifying disparate phenomena, the three mathematicians have brought some of the order that’s intrinsic to the relationship between electricity and magnetism to the relationship between periods and L-functions."...
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You're back!!
I was beginning to think you, Austin, and Sir.Lancelot were gone for good.
-->
@Public-Choice
.
"Public-Choice," the RUNAWAY from biblical axioms because he can't address them and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath, and now a pseudo-christian, whereas he can't handle Jesus' true modus operandi as a serial killer and abortionist, and comes up with some of the lamest "little boy excuses" not to address my posts to him,
YOUR EMBARRASSING QUOTE RELATIVE TO YOUFOUND_LXAM: " You're back!! I was beginning to think you, Austin, and Sir.Lancelot were gone for good."
We can see that you are so happy to have another Biblical fool like you now present, where it may take off some of the heat from many members of this forum in showing you to be as Bible Stupid as Miss Tradesecret! LOL!
.
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Adamantly within the scriptures, Jesus is greedy, jealous, selfish, self-centered, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, and a malevolent. I accept the aforementioned true description of Jesus within the Bible, and I do not try and apologetically spin doctor His true self away, understood Bible fool?
I’d like to see reasonings for all of these, and don’t run away, provide the verses & context.
-->
@IlDiavolo
You should have started off with this. Yours is a creationist argument.To me, this argument is not enough to prove the existence of God, specially if it's the God of christians which is what you refer to, I suppose.I would argue though that creationism can prove the existence of a "universal mind" or a "universal conciousness", but God is not just this according to religious people. For theists, God is omniscient, omnipotent, almighty, vengeful and loving, harsh and compassionate, unforgiving and merciful, in other words God is a mother fucker but also a saint, which is, as you noted, soundly ridiculous.When you, christians, start to understand that your bible is pure nonsense, I think we can sit down and talk like the big boys we are.
Of course. Nothing can 100% prove anything.
No amount of evidence will ever be enough for those who believe that something needs 100% evidence in order to be fact.
We cannot prove with 100% that any of our existence is real.
So, with you thinking, sure.
Also, if you want to get into a conversation about the Bible (most historically accurate book in history), and who Christians believe God to be, then gladly make your own forum.
-->
@Double_R
Math doesn't "exist" in any sense of the word, nor is it a product of anything.
Do you use math?
If yes, then it exists.
Simple.
Math is an extension of logic, so when you argue that math comes from God you are arguing that logic also comes from God, which is incoherent.
Thats a bold statement to make.
That math the tool we use, is an extension of something we own?
I don't understand all of math, and neither does any human anywhere.
In other words, math in infinite, and we are finite. So how is it an extension of us?
Let's start at the beginning. Do you believe God is subject to the laws of logic?
No. He is not subject to anything.
If you say he's not, then your belief in him is irrational by definition.
Ah ah ah.
I said he is not subject to logic.
I did not say he doesn't use logic.
Again, the Bible says that we are created in the image of God.
This could mean physical, but God isn't a physical being.
So, this has to mean spiritually or mentally.
Now we have the trinity.
Father: Mental
Son: Physical
Holy Spirit: Spiritual
All God. Three different aspects.
So, when we use logic, so does God.
Also, logic is a universal principle. God is beyond our universe. Therefore, to try and even tie a universally bound reasoning, to a non-universal being, is a fallacy in of itself.
Neither option makes sense. Humans didn't invent math, we discovered it.
From where?
Math doesn't "control" the universe in any coherent sense of the word. It's not acting, is not making decisions, it just is.
Did you read the rest of my argument?
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Let's start at the beginning. Do you believe God is subject to the laws of logic?No. He is not subject to anything.
We can stop the conversation here.
To believe God is not subject to the laws of logic is to believe that God can exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense. It is to believe he can be what he is and be what he is not. It is to say we can have God and also have no God. He can do all of these things because logic is not a limitation for him. And if you believe he can do all of those things, then logic itself is not a limitation for what you believe, because it is definitionally impossible to logically justify believing that.
If you cannot logically justify your beliefs, or worse, claim your beliefs are beyond logic then this conversation is pointless. You believe what you believe because you want to believe it. Next time, stop pretending and just start there.
-->
@Double_R
It doesn't "interact". It is an observable quality of existence, and is no more explainable than existence itself.
How can an "observable quality of existence" NOT EXIST?
In order for it to come from God that would mean God came first This means there was a point in which there was a God but no logic
Which came first, the "mind" or the "self"? Is it not worth considering that God and logic are concurrent?
This means it is possible for something to exist without being subject to logic
Yes.
This means it is possible for something to be what it is and not be what it is at the same time in the same sense.
Only if logic dictates existence. And it doesn't. How can logic in and of itself "be" while it simultaneously subverts existence? If you're going to argue that logic is "an observable quality of existence" then why is it not then not apropos to argue that logic is an observable quality of God?
2+2=4 was true long before humans came along.
No, it wasn't. The numbers "two" and "four" are merely abstract assignments.
We didn't create that
Yes we did.
we observed that it was true and then created words to express it.
What are the masses, weights, volumes, and densities of the numbers "two" and "four"?
That's called discovery.
That's called "conception"--or better yet, IMAGINATION.
Words have meaning. The universe and everything in it is subject to the laws of physics and math. That is not what it means for something to be controlled. This is a silly semantic point.
The silly semantic point is to argue in this context that there's a distinction between being "subject to" the laws of physics and math, and being "controlled."
I think I answered this above.
Not really.
-->
@Athias
Math comes from logic. Put 2 carrots down and then put another 2 carrots down. Now count the total number of carrots. That is how math started.
-->
@FLRW
Math comes from logic.
Athias Post #58:
Math is an extension of logic,Very much so.
Put 2 carrots down and then put another 2 carrots down.
How do you know it's two?
Now count the total number of carrots.
How do you know you're counting "numbers"?
That is how math started.
How does this make math any less "imagined"?
-->
@Athias
How do you know it's two?
We assign a single object as one object, Add another object and that is 2 objects. We developed numbers to
define quantities.
-->
@Athias
In Spanish one is uno. Number systems have progressed from the use of fingers and tally marks, perhaps more than 40,000 years ago, to the use of sets of glyphs able to represent any conceivable number efficiently. The earliest known unambiguous notations for numbers emerged in Mesopotamia about 5000 or 6000 years ago.
-->
@FLRW
We assign
Athias Post #71:
The numbers "two" and "four" are merely abstract assignments.
a single object as one object,
How do you know it's "single"?
Add another object and that is 2 objects. We developed numbers to define quantities.
So quantities are not independent of qualia, but subject to (abstract) definition?
In Spanish one is uno.
I'm aware.
Number systems have progressed from the use of fingers and tally marks,
You haven't seen anyone who uses their fingers to count?
perhaps more than 40,000 years ago,
I saw my niece do it just a few years ago--granted she was in kindergarten.
to the use of sets of glyphs able to represent any conceivable number efficiently.
So you concede that numbers are conceived?
The earliest known unambiguous notations for numbers emerged in Mesopotamia about 5000 or 6000 years ago.
Lack of (our) observational data is not the absence of observational data.
-->
@Athias
How can an "observable quality of existence" NOT EXIST?
Because it doesn't meet the definition of the word.
To exist is to "have being". Qualities don't have being, they are observations of things that have being.
Which came first, the "mind" or the "self"?
In this context those two words synonymous.
Is it not worth considering that God and logic are concurrent?
I suppose you could say that, but my position is that it's not God that is necessarily concurrent with logic but rather existence itself. God is therefore concurrent not because he is God but because he (allegedly) exists.
This means it is possible for something to exist without being subject to logicYes.
See my previous post (#70)
If you're going to argue that logic is "an observable quality of existence" then why is it not then not apropos to argue that logic is an observable quality of God?
Again, it is an observable quality of God because he (allegedly) exists.
You can conceptually have logic without God, you cannot conceptually have God without logic.
2+2=4 was true long before humans came along.No, it wasn't. The numbers "two" and "four" are merely abstract assignments.
You're talking about the words, I'm talking about the essence of what those words are describing. Long before life existed on earth there were two rocks on some hill and two rocks on another, those rocks still totaled 4 even if there were no humans around to recognize it.
What are the masses, weights, volumes, and densities of the numbers "two" and "four"?
They don't have weights or volumes. This is a category error, one which I know you understand full well. Why ask me such a silly question?
The silly semantic point is to argue in this context that there's a distinction between being "subject to" the laws of physics and math, and being "controlled."
There is a distinction, and it's a very big one here in this conversation. The phrase "subject to" simply means in accordance with, that can very easily be applied and is often applied to mean "along the lines of [something that has no agency]".
Meanwhile "controlled" is used to describe a state where a thinking agent is actively involved in the events of something and actively making decisions as to what happens. Because of this, the word carries with it a clear emotional connotation because of how it has always been applied. That connotation is therefore being smuggled in when used towards something with no agency.
This is a common tactic in theistic arguments, but it's obvious why. This is what one has to resort to when their position is ultimately without rational support.
-->
@Double_R
Because it doesn't meet the definition of the word.To exist is to "have being". Qualities don't have being, they are observations of things that have being.
Define, "have being."
In this context those two words synonymous.
They can be. But how is this any different than the subject you brought up?
I suppose you could say that, but my position is that it's not God that is necessarily concurrent with logic but rather existence itself. God is therefore concurrent not because he is God but because he (allegedly) exists.
The proposition is that God has always been. Therefore God would be concurrent with existence, which is rationalized through logic.
You can conceptually have logic without God, you cannot conceptually have God without logic.
IFF the argument is that God isn't the origin and source of all existence, and thereby the origin and source of logic.
You're talking about the words,
No, I am not.
I'm talking about the essence of what those words are describing.
An essence which has no description without you. We created the nomenclature "two." We created and standardized a consistent logic to determine that which we see is "two." Without us, it's nothing.
Long before life existed on earth there were two rocks on some hill and two rocks on another, those rocks still totaled 4 even if there were no humans around to recognize it.
There's no way you can confirm this in a manner that controls for our existence independently. (Excuse the dangling modifier.)
They don't have weights or volumes. This is a category error, one which I know you understand full well. Why ask me such a silly question?
Why are you affirming a silly proposition such as that which has no mass, volume, weight, or density can be "observed"?
There is a distinction, and it's a very big one here in this conversation. The phrase "subject to" simply means in accordance with, that can very easily be applied and is often applied to mean "along the lines of [something that has no agency]".Meanwhile "controlled" is used to describe a state where a thinking agent is actively involved in the events of something and actively making decisions as to what happens. Because of this, the word carries with it a clear emotional connotation because of how it has always been applied. That connotation is therefore being smuggled in when used towards something with no agency.
"Controlled" doesn't necessarily carry an "emotional connotation" since it requires no agent. And the consequence is identical, which is the reason the description of the term includes both "someone" and "something." Aren't you employing a "silly" semantic tactic?
This is a common tactic in theistic arguments,
Is it?
This is what one has to resort to when their position is ultimately without rational support.
Your counterarguments have demonstrated no such thing.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes, if God is Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts ergo math and ego/i
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Basic common sense would say that someone designed this, but no human designed it.
...except that sometimes the universe defies our "common sense." Amazingly, this quite literally infinitely intricate shape is merely a logical inevitability. By this I mean, from the rules selected (z^2=z+c, the iteration process, checking if it remains bounded, etc.), this shape is the only one that could ever arise, independent of any sort of god, or of us, or of the physical universe, or of any sort of supernatural force external to the physical universe. If you were to truly perform the tedious task of breaking every step of this down to its purely logical roots, you would see it for the logical inevitability that it truly is. This is what makes math one of the most intriguing subjects. It doesn't need to be created by anyone or anything. It doesn't need to be caused, or to be brought into existence. It just is.
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
...except that sometimes the universe defies our "common sense." Amazingly, this quite literally infinitely intricate shape is merely a logical inevitability. By this I mean, from the rules selected (z^2=z+c, the iteration process, checking if it remains bounded, etc.), this shape is the only one that could ever arise, independent of any sort of god, or of us, or of the physical universe, or of any sort of supernatural force external to the physical universe. If you were to truly perform the tedious task of breaking every step of this down to its purely logical roots, you would see it for the logical inevitability that it truly is. This is what makes math one of the most intriguing subjects. It doesn't need to be created by anyone or anything. It doesn't need to be caused, or to be brought into existence. It just is.
But something can't just be. Something can't exist without being created in some way shape or form.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But something can't just be. Something can't exist without being created in some way shape or form.
Why? If you consider God to be the creator of all other things, than God was not created. I have often heard the argument that God exists outside of time, and so is separated from causality, but the exact same thing applies to math. Math is effectively the study of those truths which are absolutely necessary. This shape, and everything else in math, exist outside of time just like this proposed God. (Perhaps you do not assert the existence of such a God, but your bio states that you are Christian, so I assumed as much.) In fact, that which is outside of time has, at any point in time, has always existed, which is in contradiction with its creation. By this logic, math cannot have been created. Oh look! Since the Christian God is supposed to have created everything, I just accidentally disproved the existence of God as defined in Christianity!
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Why? If you consider God to be the creator of all other things, than God was not created.
My apologies. Let me more clearly outline what i am referring to. I am saying that something that is a part of our natural world, that exists in our natural world, cannot have no cause. God, in order to be correctly defined as God, would have to not he bound by time, space, or matter. Therefore, he would have exist outside of our natural world, making him supernatural.
I have often heard the argument that God exists outside of time, and so is separated from causality, but the exact same thing applies to math. Math is effectively the study of those truths which are absolutely necessary. This shape, and everything else in math, exist outside of time just like this proposed God.
True. But since we also utilize math, it also exists in our natural world, so it would logically have to demand a beginning, and creation, preferably by something beyond its capabilities.
In fact, that which is outside of time has, at any point in time, has always existed
But, time has not always existed. You can have an infinite future, but you cannot have an infinite past, otherwise it would be impossible to make your way to the present.
-->
@Double_R
To believe God is not subject to the laws of logic is to believe that God can exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense.
No. He exists, but not in our natural world. He can affect our natural world, but can't exist in it, because the universe is finite, and God is infinite.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
My apologies. Let me more clearly outline what i am referring to. I am saying that something that is a part of our natural world, that exists in our natural world, cannot have no cause. God, in order to be correctly defined as God, would have to not he bound by time, space, or matter. Therefore, he would have exist outside of our natural world, making him supernatural.
Math is not bound by time, space, or matter, therefore you should hopefully agree that it requires no creator.
True. But since we also utilize math, it also exists in our natural world, so it would logically have to demand a beginning, and creation, preferably by something beyond its capabilities.
So if I write an allegory, and someone applies it to their lifestyle, the allegory exists in the natural world? If it exists in the natural world, then so does everything that it contains. If the allegory contains a unicorn, and the allegory is applied to the natural world, then by your logic, unicorns exist in the natural world.
But, time has not always existed. You can have an infinite future, but you cannot have an infinite past, otherwise it would be impossible to make your way to the present.
"Time has not always existed" huh? So there was a point in time at which time didn't exist? Seems self-contradictory to me. And before you argue that my rephrasing of your original statement misrepresents it, keep in mind that "always" is a temporal word. Always is literally defined as "at all times." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/always)
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
To believe God is not subject to the laws of logic is to believe that God can exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense.No. He exists, but not in our natural world. He can affect our natural world, but can't exist in it, because the universe is finite, and God is infinite.
This does not address the problem.
First I didn't say he did exist and not exist, I said he could, as in it's within his capabilities.
Second, existence isn't limited to the natural world.
Third, you are contradicting yourself. You say he can't exist within the natural world because he's infinite and the natural world is finite. In other words, he can't exist in the natural world because that would be a logical contradiction.
-->
@Double_R
First I didn't say he did exist and not exist, I said he could, as in it's within his capabilities.
Yes? Your point with this statement, if you could elaborate?
Second, existence isn't limited to the natural world.
Prove it without accidentally proving the existence of God.
You say he can't exist within the natural world because he's infinite and the natural world is finite. In other words, he can't exist in the natural world because that would be a logical contradiction.
Imagine you create a jar. You can't fit inside the jar, but you can affect what's inside it.
Also, what is the contradiction?
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Math is not bound by time, space, or matter, therefore you should hopefully agree that it requires no creator.
But math in of itself is a sign of intelligence. Again, if this intelligence goes beyond time space, and matter, then it can also create things beyond time space and matter. How do your account for the fact that math is infinite, but the universe is finite?
If the allegory contains a unicorn, and the allegory is applied to the natural world, then by your logic, unicorns exist in the natural world.
Yes, the concept of a unicorn exists in the natural world.
"Time has not always existed" huh? So there was a point in time at which time didn't exist?
Yes, but I wouldn't phrase it like that. I would say that there was a point where time came into existence.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But math in of itself is a sign of intelligence.
What do you mean? Doing math is a sign of intelligence, yes, but the Mandelbrot set was the Mandelbrot set before anyone plugged the numbers into a computer, and if you disagree with that, then you are effectively saying that said computer created it, which would defeat your entire original argument.
Again, if this intelligence goes beyond time space, and matter, then it can also create things beyond time space and matter. How do your account for the fact that math is infinite, but the universe is finite?
To create is to bring into existence. This implies that the thing previously did not exist, and now does exist. If it did exist previously, it did not need to be created, and if it does not exist now, then it has not been created. As to your question, it's simple: Math is not contained within the physical world.
Yes, the concept of a unicorn exists in the natural world.
Okay, so we extend the natural world beyond the physical world. Why is it that everything in the natural world must be created?
Yes, but I wouldn't phrase it like that. I would say that there was a point where time came into existence.
You deliberately ignored the part where I point out that your statement is self-contradictory. As I have already pointed out, "always" is a temporal word, so your statement does indeed imply that there was a time at which time didn't exist, that it, there was a point at which time did and didn't exist. Regardless, your new phrasing would suggest a different interpretation: Time had a beginning. This I would agree with. Nonetheless, math existing outside of time means more than that it has always existed. It means that it also exists in states of reality (not exactly "points in time" anymore) in which there is no concept of time whatsoever. The point is that you cannot create something if that thing exists regardless of your creation of it.
Now I have a question for you. You claim that the Mandelbrot set was created by God. In a theoretical in which God did not exist, when the formula for generating the Mandelbrot set was plugged into a computer, what would happen?
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
What do you mean? Doing math is a sign of intelligence, yes, but the Mandelbrot set was the Mandelbrot set before anyone plugged the numbers into a computer, and if you disagree with that, then you are effectively saying that said computer created it, which would defeat your entire original argument.
The fact that we can do math, proves that math is an intelligent system.
If we were to find a complex system like Google, on a remote planet somewhere, we would automatically assume that the system is a sign of intelligence. Even if we couldn't understand how the system works, doesn't take away from the obvious sign of intelligence.
Also, again, you have to account for the fact that the Mandelbrot set is infinite, and our universe is finite.
To create is to bring into existence. This implies that the thing previously did not exist, and now does exist. If it did exist previously, it did not need to be created, and if it does not exist now, then it has not been created.
Yes. What is your point with this. I asked how your account for math do being infinite and our world being finite, and that math is intelligent.
I want to point out that I am not talking about a big bearded white guy in the sky, when I say God. I am talking about the infinitely intelligent, all knowing, omnipresent being.
So, when we have an intelligent system that goes beyond our natural world, and is an intelligent system, logically we have to conclude that the intelligent system had to have an intelligent creator.
As to your question, it's simple: Math is not contained within the physical world.
So, you admit there is a natural world, and a supernatural world?
Okay, so we extend the natural world beyond the physical world. Why is it that everything in the natural world must be created?
Does Morality exist?
Does Math exist?
Does Time exist?
Does Gravity exist?
The point is that you cannot create something if that thing exists regardless of your creation of it.
You can if your God.
. In a theoretical in which God did not exist, when the formula for generating the Mandelbrot set was plugged into a computer, what would happen?
Well, if God didn't exist, then nothing would exist, because God would have to create everything, so there would be no Mandelbrot set, and no computers, and no humans to type that in, and no math, and nothing.