Proving God exists using Math

[serene bluff]

Not sure it's a good idea. A proof wouldn't be needed, it's supposed to be based on belief

[storm gate]

God exists in your mind
and so do your senses
so god exists for you. For you, he is very real.
But not for Bobby here. for him he can only look into your mind and see a foggy light, and vice versa

do you see what I'm getting at here?

[serene bluff]

No, I belive in God too, but I don't think a proof, if there was any, would be needed. It's about believe, that's the whole point

[storm gate]

Well then "bobby" wasnt the best example
Uhhh
That guy on the street

[serene bluff]

wait why you calling me bobby?

nvm

I forgot I changed my profile

[earnest nest]

Wait, what's your requirements for a God, first of all.

[dawn herald]

This question is beyond everyone's comprehension. Besides, not everything in the universe is math either.

[serene bluff]

I like this response: "not everything is the universe is math"

[supple berry]

Elaborate please

not agreeing or disargeeing with you. I am just curious to hear more about this.

[shrewd widget]

friendships and love are not math

emotions aren’t math

[brittle bramble]

[serene bluff]

U didn’t define what God is…. How the frock are we suppose to prove that God exists with math?

[shrewd widget]

fr

[serene bluff]

It’s like asking “what’s the value of x” without any kind of definition for x

[serene bluff]

"In Christianity, God is believed to be the eternal, supreme being who created and preserves all things. Christians believe in a monotheistic conception of God, which is both transcendent (wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and immanent (involved in the material universe)."

ofcourse God(s) is defined differently in other religions im sure

but can something be "both transcendent (wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and immanent (involved in the material universe)."

i suppose this question is better suited to physics barring it being completely nonsense

[serene bluff]

If god = everything, then god will be the universal set for every set… idk I am pretty noob at math

So math might be the subset of god

[sand bramble]

im not religious but-

e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0

[pseudo barn]

debatable

[sand bramble]

doubt~3

[zinc fractal]

theres a modal logical proof of existence of god

but the term god has no particular meaning in the proof argument

more like a 'for fun' exercise

[valid tusk]

A necessary being with only and all positive properties

You can look into Gordel's Ontological Argument for the existence of God which is probably the closest you'll get. Alexander Pruss wrote some papers on possible improvements to Gordel's argument, but ontological arguments for the existence of God are debated.

[rich lake]

im not advanced in math but.
first of all you didnt even define god.
secondly, i dont think you can describe something outside of universe(positionally or as in capability) using math since our math works only in this universe, because it was developed in this universe to describe things in this same universe.
thirdly, god is a matter of belief and even if you managed to prove its existence using math, our logical arguments suggest otherwise(proving that the arguments of gods existence are not grounded and dont prove god actually).

a while ago when i was still using tiktok(fortunately unistalled it) i saw a video that was allegedly proving gods existence using math and in the comments everyone was appreciating them(maker of the video) even though they didnt know what the math actually meant and wheter or not it actually proved god. in the end, i dont think they(maker of the video) also knew what the math actually meant and think that they just used math to confuse people by exploiting the lack of sufficient knowledge which people have for math.

[zinc fractal]

which is meaningless, it's a placeholder variable for what one might think a god is

besides why would god only have "positive" properties

..and that opens the philosophical flood gates

[ruby juniper]

so a proof of existence of anything?

i looked it up

[zinc fractal]

well not quite anything, you can't prove existence of something contradictory

but yeah, you can reproduce the argument with virtually anything

[ruby juniper]

just by changing which properties are positive i guess?

[zinc fractal]

it's a can of worms, you'd have to define what a positive property is etc etc etc..

[valid tusk]

Yea it’s more of a philosophical question than a mathematical one.

At best, math is only introduced for the logic behind the argumentation.

[zinc fractal]

you can argue precisely in favour of existence of god, but you also have to have mathematically precise premises

I haven't seen any such premises described, I don't even know if it can be done

hence the discussion is ultimately philosophical

lord knows, pun intended, the philosophers love to play bait and switch with their assumptions to suit their needs

[serene bluff]

idk but for some reasons i feel god = 0

just a gut feeling, no math

[serene bluff]

God = no more raising the price of mcchickens

[brittle bramble]

God = the things we'll never accomplish

[sand bramble]

therefore god = e^(i*pi) + 1

[serene bluff]

all hail euler

[sand bramble]

Lord Eular 🙏

There is actually a poster in one of my school's classrooms thst says "Eular was an absolute gun" hidden in a paragraph

Can u imagine

Being remembered hundreds of years in the future as "an absolute gun"

[frank birch]

mathematical probability states that our chances of existing without a creator is like 1 x 10^2,685,000 which is extremely low odds.

[sand bramble]

Uhh proof?

[frank birch]

let me site some sources

[sand bramble]

Maybe instead of sources just give a proof

In maths, you do not need a source

U just need a proof

[frank birch]

I don't know much about the proof itself I didn't do my own calculations on this because it should be common knowledge that the chance we just poofed into existence is low

[sand bramble]

I mean

[frank birch]

i mean if i show you a house and say there was no builder you would call me crazy

[sand bramble]

How do we know it is low?

What if it is guaranteed?

We have a sample size of 1

[frank birch]

because the universe was tuned in such a fine way there is no way its just a fluke.

[sand bramble]

And we do not know how it appeared

[sand bramble]

Are you sure it is fine tuned

This could be a coincidence

What if

There are infinite universes

All with random settings

[zinc fractal]

nothing I've ever heard of

it's also been calculated what the odds are that there's intelligent life somewhere else etc

[sand bramble]

And because this one happened to have the correct settings we are able to exist

[frank birch]

the fact life exist points to it being fined tuned

can yall shut up so i can talk?

[zinc fractal]

talk or preach?

[frank birch]

this is just another theory that has no where near enough evidence

[sand bramble]

Advantages of text based communication: multiple people can talk simultaneously whilst also paying attention to what each other are saying

[sand bramble]

Neither does yours

Yours has no evidenc3

Neither does smine

[frank birch]

talk, preaching would be me just saying turn to God with no proof of him.

[zinc fractal]

fair

[frank birch]

yes I do have proof

[zinc fractal]

present said proof

[sand bramble]

^

[zinc fractal]

cite an article or mathscinet id or however

[frank birch]

think of this, we know the universe had a beginning and will have an end, therefore it had a cause of creation and is finite.

[sand bramble]

We don't know it had a beginning

We know it has been exapnding

[frank birch]

that cause has a high probable chance of being an intelligent mind

[zinc fractal]

that we assume the big bang model doesn't make it true

[frank birch]

im pretty sure i can look up (did the universe have a beginning and it will easily say yes in like 100 different ways.

[sand bramble]

What if the universe had negative size?

[zinc fractal]

that's some lsd talk 😄

[frank birch]

btw i never said life doesnt exist elsewhere

[sand bramble]

It's a probable theory

[zinc fractal]

my point being rather that it's more like a for fun exercise than serious math

[sand bramble]

But what if it just had a "bug crunch"

[frank birch]

highly probable way unlike your multiverse theory.

[sand bramble]

Yes

[frank birch]

explain

[sand bramble]

Big*

[frank birch]

i love you guys btw sorry for saying shut up. science, facts, math, discussion, debate. this is so fun.

[zinc fractal]

you can make some density related arguments to give some probability that there is life elsewhere or god exists or whatever you want really

[sand bramble]

What if...
The universe has been going thru a cycle of expanding and contracting for who knows how lomg

[frank birch]

depends if the subject is important to you id say

[sand bramble]

And for some reason

This time its ending

[frank birch]

thats already a theory

[sand bramble]

Irrelevant but ok lol

[frank birch]

i know sorry

i can give some more reasons

[sand bramble]

Go ahead

[zinc fractal]

statements you think are reasons*

the discussion is philosophical, math's been abandoned already

[frank birch]

God’s existence

1.    the universe existing without a creator has a 1 x 10^2,685,000 chance which is extremely low odds.  2. The universe is finite, meaning it had a beginning and will have an end. But the universe can’t create itself, nothing just comes into existence, that’s not how matter nor the universe works. If I showed you a house and said there was no builder, you would call me crazy. 3. The universe is finite, which means it had a beginning and will have an end. Because it is finite it had a cause, that cause is probable to be a creator (God) who is infinite, meaning God didn’t have a beginning and won’t have an end. God can’t be created, the universe was, the universe was a creation, therefore, had a cause/creator. 4. The universe was tuned into such fine perfection that if gravity was just a bit stronger then the universe couldn’t exist, if the temperatures of the first stars were just a bit colder or a bit hotter it wouldn’t have the right conditions to make the other elements which means the universe wouldn’t have the right tools to make life, planets, etc. and to say all that is a fluke is preposterous. 5. The belief of the Christian God dates back very long ago, back to early humans because of the Israelites. The Israelites believed in the Christian God but did not accept Jesus as the messiah so that’s where Judaism and Christianity separate. But old judicial text and stuff are still relevant evidence to prove the existence of the Christian God. 
◦

those are SOME notes

[sand bramble]

Shhhh if you show hostility you lose

[zinc fractal]

I have a quicker proof that god exists

the bible says so

assume the bible is true

[sand bramble]

Can u... add spacings

[zinc fractal]

done

[frank birch]

yeah but im arguing against athiest so i cant really use The Bible

[sand bramble]

Like

1. Abc
2. Def
   3.ghi

[zinc fractal]

what's the point?

[sand bramble]

Just make it easy to see ur reasons...

Cause I'm not reading a wall

I wanna read bullet points

[zinc fractal]

for someone that follows the bible and assumes the bible is true, god exists

what's the problem with that?

[frank birch]

athiest dont believe in The Bible

[frank birch]

sorro its from my notes app

[zinc fractal]

that's the atheist's problem, not the believer's

[frank birch]

if im trying to convert an athiest then yes, it is my problem

[frank birch]

i can redo it my bad

[zinc fractal]

isn't that an oxymoron

[sand bramble]

Uh an oxymoron is actually when 2 or more adjacent words are antonyms

Maybe you were thinking of a paradox?

[frank birch]

God’s existence

1.    the universe existing without a creator has a 1 x 10^2,685,000 chance which is extremely low odds.  
2.    The universe is finite, meaning it had a beginning and will have an end. But the universe can’t create itself, nothing just comes into existence, that’s not how matter nor the universe works. If I showed you a house and said there was no builder, you would call me crazy. 
3.    The universe is finite, which means it had a beginning and will have an end. Because it is finite it had a cause, that cause is probable to be a creator (God) who is infinite, meaning God didn’t have a beginning and won’t have an end. God can’t be created, the universe was, the universe was a creation, therefore, had a cause/creator. 
4.    The universe was tuned into such fine perfection that if gravity was just a bit stronger then the universe couldn’t exist, if the temperatures of the first stars were just a bit colder or a bit hotter it wouldn’t have the right conditions to make the other elements which means the universe wouldn’t have the right tools to make life, planets, etc. and to say all that is a fluke is preposterous. 
5.    The belief of the Christian God dates back very long ago, back to early humans because of the Israelites. The Israelites believed in the Christian God but did not accept Jesus as the messiah so that’s where Judaism and Christianity separate. But old judicial text and stuff are still relevant evidence to prove the existence of the Christian God. 
◦

[sand bramble]

Or an antithesis?

[zinc fractal]

tell the atheist to assume the bible is true

[frank birch]

There

[zinc fractal]

skip all the nonsense

[frank birch]

thats illogical because to them its just one big fairytale book

[zinc fractal]

why are you trying to mix logic and religion in the first place?

[frank birch]

because thats how you get people to believe in a higher deity

with logic and reason

[zinc fractal]

[frank birch]

people wont listen if i just say "trust me bro"

[zinc fractal]

so I assume you think this is logical?

[sand bramble]

Discarding 1 as it has no proof at all
Things do come into existence, look up virtual particles. And the universe is not a house.
See response 2
What if this state of the universe is probable? What if there isn't more than one universe? There isn't a way to know.
Just because it's old doesn't mean it is true.

[frank birch]

to an extent, this is just a bit of notes that tok me a good 10 minutes to write

[sand bramble]

No you use emotions

You use the social setting of the church

[zinc fractal]

I'll give you a different perspective.

Science and religion are incompatible. You are free to believe or follow either one, just don't try to mix them. The base assumptions are different. The methods to establish truth are different.

[sand bramble]

You make people WANT to believe it is true because it is comforting

Then you add logic to try and justify it

[frank birch]

science and religion are compatable and you're completely wrong for that statement

[zinc fractal]

yeah, alright find me a group of doctors who want to discuss god during a medical discussion

[sand bramble]

And members do not attempt to criticise the logic because of fear of being outcast from their religion and also because they want to think their belief is logical

[frank birch]

1. i can state you articles. 2. your multiverse theory is illogical and has no scientific proof behind it

[sand bramble]

Multiverse isn't illogical, but you are right it doesn't have proof

It is just one possibility

[frank birch]

why would they talk of God during a medical procedure, speaking of a higher deity has its own category

[sand bramble]

Just like yours

[zinc fractal]

you said religion and science are compatible, so why not involve god in medicine?

[frank birch]

no because im baking up mine with statements, youre just saying "what-if"s

[sand bramble]

Dude

Your statements are not better than mine

You cannot just arbitrarily decide they are

[zinc fractal]

In short. Today's science is based the scientific method. That method is iscompatible with dogma. It doesn't make religion false or science false.

[frank birch]

because the talk of a omniscient being has no reason to be in a topic of medicine. you CAN talk about God when talking about stuff like the beginning of the universe.

[sand bramble]

Wuts dogma

[zinc fractal]

religious dogma

whichever religion you wish

[sand bramble]

The beginning of the universe... something we know little about

[frank birch]

they are, youre just saying "well what if". im saying how the universe is finite and had a begining and will have an end.

[sand bramble]

What's dogma mean?

[zinc fractal]

axiom in religious sense

[sand bramble]

You also claim that means it must have a cause, and then assert that cause is god

[zinc fractal]

it's a statement that is true without justification

[sand bramble]

I see

Like 1+1=2

[sand bramble]

Scientific dogma

[zinc fractal]

god's existence in the bible is dogma, for example

[frank birch]

yes, because things dont create themselves, you have to revert back to an origin of something that didnt have a creation and wont have an end, something or someone infinite, like God.

[zinc fractal]

that's how genesis begins

it establishes automatically that god exists

[frank birch]

okay

[sand bramble]

Why does it have to be god?

[frank birch]

but i still feel science and God can go hand in hand

[sand bramble]

A multiverse is equally likely as far as I am concenred

[sand bramble]

You wish

[frank birch]

because God is infinite and allknowing

[zinc fractal]

that's fine for you to feel, but that's not how it works

[sand bramble]

Again, why does it have to be all knowing?

Multiverse can be infinite

Assuming multiverse is infinite

And has ALWAYS existed

Why 8s that less likely than god?

[frank birch]

i wouldnt be an Orthodox Christian if it didnt, saying that the existence of God and science cant go together is arrogant and illogical.

[sand bramble]

Arrogant how?

[zinc fractal]

you can't criticise religion from the viewpoint of an atheist/scientist or a mathematician or what have you

[sand bramble]

And you do not need religion for anything in science, and you cannot use science for anything religious

[frank birch]

im pretty sure the multiverse theory isnt infinite. isnt that the omniverse theory?

[sand bramble]

I wouldn't know but sure let's go with omniverse theory then

[frank birch]

i literally just explained how the universe is finite and stuff, thats science, then I brought in the thought of a creator, thats religion, boom.

[frank birch]

okay

[zinc fractal]

the best that I can do from a logical point of view is "you haven't proven god exists to me by showing god to me"

this is ridiculous for a believer

you can call them loons if you want, but that just makes you a hypocrite

[frank birch]

because youre just saying "no" for no logical reason so its personal arrogancy

[sand bramble]

That's not using religion with science

[frank birch]

then tell me, why DOES religion and science not go together?

[sand bramble]

That's like saying "i was talking about relativity and then brought up peter pan; boom! Peter pan can be used with science"

[zinc fractal]

scientific method is not applied in religion

[sand bramble]

Science uses the scientific method, religion uses "dogma"

[frank birch]

peter pan was never stated to be a creator of the universe, has no historical religion behind it, your statement is easily refuted

[sand bramble]

You are saying God exists with no logical reason so that's just personal arrogancy

[frank birch]

you just learned what dogma means dont even

[frank birch]

it can be

[sand bramble]

What do any of those things have to do with being compatible with science

[zinc fractal]

it is not, and it's not supposed to be and neither will it be helpful

[frank birch]

im giving logical reason, youre just ignoring me and then saying "but what about the multiverse"

[zinc fractal]

haven't you realised by now considering what a logical being you are that you are in this mess in the first place because you try to make sense of religion using logic?

[frank birch]

Because the thought something or someone created the universe with all its physics and perfections is a logical science thing

[sand bramble]

I said "what if the multiverse"

And it's still reason

[sand bramble]

...how?

[frank birch]

no because religion is logical

[sand bramble]

Who the hell told u that

Religion is based on emotions

Religion is a social and emotional thing

Useful for hope and getting people to group together

[frank birch]

because science is the study of the universe and it is belived that God created the universe

[zinc fractal]

I'm afraid you are mistaken, the bible contains contradictions in the classical sense

[sand bramble]

It is NOT useful for understanding how the world works

[sand bramble]

Science isn't specifically the study of the universe, science is study

[zinc fractal]

and it's not the only religious text with logical contradictions

[sand bramble]

Using the scientific method

[frank birch]

contridictions from people taking verses out of context, reading it wrong, etc. they were disproven on one youtube video you can look it up.

guys you know how i love you

[sand bramble]

...emotions?

[frank birch]

this girl who cals me good boy wants me to play with her can I PLEASE come back this

please\

please

[sand bramble]

Yes

[zinc fractal]

are you projecting?

[frank birch]

please

i swear ill be back

I promise

[zinc fractal]

time to take your medicine i think

[frank birch]

she needs me

[zinc fractal]

it's wearing off

[sand bramble]

Dawg go ahead

[frank birch]

you want proof?

[sand bramble]

I am down to do this for hours

Come back whenever

[zinc fractal]

none required, please educate yourself on the basics of logic though

[sand bramble]

RIP

I wish u best of luck

[frank birch]

🙏

Thank you man

I love you guys

[frank birch]

okay

im back

where were we

[sand bramble]

mm kay

[frank birch]

projecting?

[sand bramble]

uh can we start with a proof that odds of universe without god are 1 / some aburdly large number?

i do not want an article

i want maths

[frank birch]

science is study of everything you are right, and you can study the belif of God using logical reasoning like me or other ways like how you can easily use mathematics to prove the universe was tuned in such a way it cant just be a fluke

[frank birch]

sure

lemme put on some music for this

also this video explains some stuff quite well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0hxb5UVaNE&pp=ygUXdXNpbmcgbWF0aCB0byBwcm92ZSBnb2Q%3D

[sand bramble]

how can u use maths to prove its a fluke when we do not know the probability of a universe existing nor with these settings

[frank birch]

you mean how can i use maths to prove its not a fluke?

[sand bramble]

attacking the arguements presented by not you is pointless

[sand bramble]

yes

[zinc fractal]

earlier you criticised me for "potentially watching some youtube video" about something 😄

[frank birch]

where

[zinc fractal]

here

[frank birch]

maybe how everything adds up. i mean we dont make these equations as much as we discover them, they already exist in the universe, just not in physical form

[zinc fractal]

or do you cite youtube as a credible source?

[sand bramble]

well the queston of whether we discover or invent maths is still debated

[frank birch]

where was i critizising you about watching a video? i was saying that you can find videos to disprove those contridictions

my bad, i meant "contridictions"

[frank birch]

fair

[zinc fractal]

you said that I make these claims based on hearsay

and media is one such "hearsay"

[frank birch]

i wasnt saying media was heresy i was saying you can find videos to disprove the "contridictions". i said nothing against the videos

[zinc fractal]

you should also consider that youtube videos have catchy titles

they're meant for entertainment

not for education

[frank birch]

some can be used for education. videos arent just youtube pranks. if you want to find something informational you can.

[zinc fractal]

agreed, but in that case the title is not philosophical

[frank birch]

but still, we created the equations in physical form, but they already exist in the universe. we didnt create the physics, we found them.

[frank birch]

its a simple title, why does it need to be all philosophical? it gets straight to the point.

[sand bramble]

you mean the relationship between objects still exists

we just invented a way to describe it

[zinc fractal]

both the title and the content are philosophical, which is fine

[frank birch]

yes

[zinc fractal]

you can use math technique to prove god, but it does not make the statement true

[frank birch]

exactly

[zinc fractal]

do you understand?

[frank birch]

and someone put those equations into form of the universe, that who is all knowing, all powerful, infinite. God!

[frank birch]

fair

[zinc fractal]

one could also prove not god

but again, it doesn't have to be true

[frank birch]

but you can also just use mathematical probability to suggests i die in a week or not, doesnt mean its true or not

[sand bramble]

uhh no/

[zinc fractal]

it depends on what you assume, hence the philosophy of it

[frank birch]

why not?

[frank birch]

true

[sand bramble]

that is a huuuuuge leap

[frank birch]

the equations didnt do them themselves

[sand bramble]

why can they not just exist?

nothing needs to put them in place

thats not some requirement

that is just how it is

(maybe)

[ruby juniper]

schrodinger's cat wakes up from a nap after the radioactive atom remains stable for much longer than expected and expresses shock at its own continuous consciousness, and concludes the system is broken

[frank birch]

because things don't come into existence. I could do the mathematics for that if needed but may take long, esspecially because im already working on a personal equation.

[frank birch]

that can be a logical theory while not evident though, again, how many times do you see things just spawn?

[frank birch]

erm elaborate on your point

[ruby juniper]

anthropic principle but with a cat

[frank birch]

oh youre talking about different points of view of the universe?

would be cool if it happened to a human

you know

so they could actually talk

and tell us

but its a cat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

[sand bramble]

why not

what if those did

[ruby juniper]

nah im saying there is no surprise that we're in a universe that supports us, the likelihood of that is 100%

[frank birch]

oh okay

[sand bramble]

that is true

[frank birch]

sorry cant really tell

[ruby juniper]

its just funny to talk about schrodingers cat

though actually thats like cat murder so not really

[frank birch]

but they dont, when is the last time you saw matter being created? it doesnt just happen

[ruby juniper]

it does happen

[frank birch]

i read about Schrodinger in my quantum physics book.

[frank birch]

when

[sand bramble]

universal mathematical relationships between objects are not matter

also

VIRTUAL PARTICLES

and, what if matter ALWAYS EXISTED

hmm?

[frank birch]

that would mean the universe is infinite, which its not.

[sand bramble]

which one

[frank birch]

also my fault for that one

[sand bramble]

w

what

[ruby juniper]

idk you can look it up
its the time reversed version of matter destruction, turning into some non-matter thing like light, which does actually sometimes happen

[ruby juniper]

in time or space

[frank birch]

let me take a picture

[frank birch]

yes,

[frank birch]

i was wrong on that part i forgot about virtual particles

[ruby juniper]

my opinion on this is that the universe is infinite in all directions

[sand bramble]

yeahh

uhhh i think it isnt

[frank birch]

@sand bramble

[sand bramble]

if the universe were infinite every part of the sky would lead to a star (or planet maybe)

[ruby juniper]

observable universe is finite in space

[frank birch]

you mean infinitley expanding in all directions of space?

[sand bramble]

wait who is th author

[ruby juniper]

nah i mean like (1) theres no wall in any direction you cant go past (2) theres no beginning (3) theres no end

[frank birch]

carl j pratt

[ruby juniper]

well, you know, you can imagine some horrible fate in 10^10^10^10^10^10 years from now where all the particles go away but the universe would still be somehow there, at least, thats my headcanon

[frank birch]

1. we dont know that, we can only see so far and also if its expanding, the biggest question is what is it expanding into? 3. no end of what?

[sand bramble]

biased source

[frank birch]

i said j

carl J pratt

[sand bramble]

oh mb

[frank birch]

also its a book on quantum physics and has nothing to do with Christianity

[ruby juniper]

end of time

[frank birch]

the universe is finite, it will have an end.

[ruby juniper]

source?

[sand bramble]

so the words "god" and "jesus" occur zero times

[frank birch]

yea

its not a book about God

hold on

[frank birch]

on sec

[frank birch]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4250-tantalising-evidence-hints-universe-is-finite/

https://theconversation.com/is-space-infinite-we-asked-5-experts-165742

[ruby juniper]

thats space

does it talk about time

[frank birch]

yes

https://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe-finite-infinite.html

also its still a debated topic so neither of us would "win" or "lose" the argument

[ruby juniper]

im not here to win or lose im just trying to learn many perspectives

[frank birch]

i know but ive been debating with them for a while and most of the arguments are about win or lose.

[ruby juniper]

oh you were talking to metactal

[frank birch]

him and the other dude

[sand bramble]

Dawg, it's god of the gaps.
as long as there is stuff we do not know

religious people will use it as "proof" of their religion

[frank birch]

same goes both ways for athiest who cant accept a higher deity

are you guys tired?

no one is texting

[sand bramble]

I have hw

[sand bramble]

Don't assert i have some inability to accept it, I just have no reason to

[zinc fractal]

do you assume logic to be superior to religion, why is it so important to tackle all this from a logical stand point, isnt belief alone enough?

[sand bramble]

Because it is unlikely to be true

[frank birch]

no no its okay, remember i left to talk to that girl

[frank birch]

for me, belief is enough, but i do still enjoy logic and facts

[zinc fractal]

keep them separated and its all good

[frank birch]

no

[zinc fractal]

you can enjoy both

[frank birch]

together

[sand bramble]

If a Christian is so because of logic, then they will not remain Christian for too long

[frank birch]

its not because of logic, ive been Christian for years, I am Orthodox and i will not betray my faith

[sand bramble]

So why should I become a Christian then

[frank birch]

because there is a God and his name is Jesus Christ

[sand bramble]

I doubt that

[frank birch]

thats why we're having this debate i feel but im gonna go to bed soon

[sand bramble]

I have been in bed this whole time

https://tenor.com/view/ahead-of-you-gif-18442352

[serene bluff]

You people debated pretty long…

And @frank birch how old are you

[frank birch]

I’m 14 almost 15!

[serene bluff]

Hmm thought so from your voice

[frank birch]

Woooooow

I see how it is

Ageist

No discrimination of age here I see🙄

[zinc fractal]

oh well

[sand bramble]

oughtn't it be "chronist" or something?

[zinc fractal]

[sand bramble]

coming from "chronos" the word for time and the suffix "ist" used to mean prejudice based injustice

"ageist" feels childish

a 5 year old could come up with that

it feels awkward to say

[mint bough]

i dont believe in christian god, but i believe in math as a god

[ruby juniper]

does math have anything like a mind or goals

[mint bough]

its more like the rules of the natural universe than a being that knows every human ethical problem

Because i dont think we are alone in the universe, and we are only in the position we are now because of evolution, and a god wouldn’t create us “like it”, even that god isnt natural, is doesn’t have a shape or colors

[valid tusk]

Kurt Gordel would like to speak with you

A lot of mathematicians though were religious and/or believed in God

[sand bramble]

...so?

[valid tusk]

so

If a Christian is so because of logic, then they will not remain Christian for too long
is false

[sand bramble]

are you sure he is christian because of logic?

[ruby juniper]

religious and/or believed in god because of logic? or because of the same reasons as everyone else, because they grew up with it and it gives a sense of community and meaning

[sand bramble]

there is not a way to verify

[sand bramble]

so i suppose we can occam's razor this

[ruby juniper]

however i dont think its as easy to logic your way out of a belief as this suggests

[sand bramble]

yes

[valid tusk]

Well Kurt Godel is the one I mentioned earlier who formulated an ontological argument for the existence of God

[ruby juniper]

an ontological argument for the existence of almost anything, i'm told

[valid tusk]

It's specifically for God as presented to have all positive properties. But logic is only in the domain of analyzing consistency and validity of arguments but not the soundness. Whether an argument is sound is in the realm of philosophical inquiry.

All dogs are birds
Bolt is a dog
Therefore bolt is a bird
This is a logically valid argument and that's all logic can say about this. We cannot show this is false from strict logic.

Although Gordel was religious, belief in God doesn't necessarily have to be tied to religion. The American Deists are an example of this.

[zinc fractal]

Gordel? do you mean Gödel?

[valid tusk]

yes

I type by how I pronounce words often

[west mirage]

?????

what is this question

[mint bough]

basically we don’t know nothing because this all can be a simulation so

But the math and logic guide the world

The rules for everything

[sand bramble]

how do we know anything is true or real?

assume real is real

[alpine wraith]

The existence of a god cannot be proven by scribbling a bunch of symbols on a page.

If a god did exist, mathematically it would have to be compatible with this:

And nothing in there has any relation to anything supernatural, or mystical, or spiritual. It is physics. Reality. The natural observable and measurable and confirmable existence that we know exists.

We could introduce a symbol lets say G = 1 god. And try and squeeze G in somewhere. But what good would that do? We could as easily assign U = 1 unicorn, and SC = 1 santa clause, and L = 1 leprechaun.

Then we could state that by definition, G = U = SC = L

Does that prove anything? No. Because… math is what you make make be, by definition. All of math is by definition. 1 has a definition. Plus, minus, multiply, divide. All have definitions.

You cannot prove something with mathematics. What you can do with math is confirm that the logic of an underlying set of concepts and operations is valid. Sound. True. Recognizing that such validity is dependent on the validity of the definitions of the concepts as defined.

All of math is “by definition”. That is the main point to keep in mind.

What is the definition of “god”? Notice the lack of size, mass, dimensions, measurable or detectable characteristics of any kind…

So if there were to be some mathematical “proof of a god”… what would be the definition used, that can then be inserted into a mathematical formula?
There is none.
Math is not the place to try and validate the existence of a god. Neither is physics. Neither is philosophy. None of them can substantiate a belief in a deity.
Deities are by definition believed in on faith. Accepted as though real, based on a choice to accept as real without evidence, substantiation or proof of any kind.

[pseudo barn]

immense crankery

[ruby juniper]

argument by dictionary definition

[zinc fractal]

this discussion is pointless, you can't even agree on what you assume

typical philosophical diarrhea

[serene bluff]

F>>>G => g€S ◇ L thus god exists

[frank birch]

Are we still arguing about this?

[west mirage]

ong

[valid tusk]

Math and physics wouldn't apply but philosophy certainly would. Philosophy of religion is the field that focuses on this exact topic, the existence of God.

But that's really an entirely different discussion than what this thread is about. The closest would be the nature of mathematics in terms of mathematical philosophy. The question of if math is constructed or if mathematical items and structures exist independently of human agents. If we conceive of God as absolute infinity as Cantor did then we may be able to do something with this and see if "God exists" is true or not, and if so in what sense.

[tidal garden]

Metaphysics is a very real part of philosophy, and it deals mostly with the question of God

[sand bramble]

🦆

[sterile jungle]

[serene bluff]

I was just thinking about god and it’s definition… and every definition of gods seems to match with the definition of time

I could be very wrong

But practically speaking, we don’t have definitive proof of god

But in short, we describe god as a being who creates stuff in the universe.

But same goes with time… if time didn’t exist then nothing would be possible to create or destroy

It could be possible that a being could have created the whole universe

But it doesn’t make sense that a god would be a 'human' like being

Like we are literally nothing in this universe

Yet we call god as a being who would be like human

God creates, god destroy, god creates the result for an action…. It could be bad result for bad action and vice versa. These are the typical definition we use for god…

But Time does the same thing as well

[serene bluff]

Just replace god with time and it would be a logical answer, which was before spiritual answer

And yea… this is the result of what i was thinking for few days

[sand bramble]

time is really just entropy

a system becoming more chaotic is "forwards" in time and vice versa

[tidal garden]

Not really

[serene bluff]

at some extent we do... don't we?

[tidal garden]

St Thomas Aquinas has a pretty good understanding of how trying to pinpoint « what » is God only puts into light how he differs from us

Indeed, God can be thought of being “human-like” as we can understand something from what he does (which is part of what we christians understand as being “made in his image and likeness”). However, he is way more non human-like that he is human-like.

Just like how the wisdom of God can be thought of in analogy of human wisdom, but exceeds it way past what we can understand of it.

[serene bluff]

intersting

[tidal garden]

Anyways, back to the original topic, as someone who has both an interest in math and who’s a faithful Christian, I’d say that Gödel’s “proof” is a very weak argument because it only shifts the discussion on the axiomatic system it rests on.

[serene bluff]

who's that and what did he prove and how?

this is first time i am hearing his name

[tidal garden]

Aquinas’ five ways are a more compelling and interesting way to reach a certain knowledge of the existence of God (in a very abstract way). Leibniz’ work on the topic is also interesting.

[tidal garden]

I’ll write an answer after my meal 😅

[serene bluff]

okok

[tidal garden]

So, Gödel wrote a proof for the existence of God that relies on a few axioms. It’s an ontological proof (ie it tries to derive the knowledge that God exists from the essence of God itself), a form of proof that has been criticized for a while. The Wikipedia article for the proof ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof ) explains it far better than I can.

As mentioned in the article, it is very similar to the proof provided by St Anselm, which was criticized back in the Middle Ages in that it mixes up God, which is Being in its purest and most perfect form, and the concept of God, which is an imperfect man-made construction that only tries to describe God.

Trying to prove something about God using human notions is bound to not go too well, and the argument is deemed to be circular by many, incomplete by others.

Now it’s not necessarily the case that something true can be proven. Gödel also came up with his famous incompleteness theorems (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/) which proves (really, this time) that any axiomatic system will have shortcomings regarding what it can prove. It’s a fascinating topic in both formal logic and epistemology.

[serene bluff]

Interesting… I will give it a read to the articles after sometimes

[plush locust]

They are quimic procees in our brain and that's basically math if you have enough variables

[shrewd widget]

you math people terrify me

[sand bramble]

Why?

Are you genuinely afraid of/upset by the fact that emotions aren't magic?

[mint bough]

now the existential crisis

[sand bramble]

if that causes an existential crisis i am concerned for humanity

[mint bough]

just a joke for the dog

guys my only god (i believe) is the math logic that guides all the universe (by physics)

It has to be out of the universe

And we are only the “code running”

[sand bramble]

thats fair

[ocean crypt]

There are many arguments for the existence of God, and one of them is the mathematical argument. This argument uses mathematical principles to show that God exists.

The mathematical argument for God's existence goes like this:

1. The universe follows precise mathematical laws and is highly ordered and complex.
2. The existence of complex mathematical laws and order in the universe cannot be explained by chance or natural processes alone.
3. The best explanation for the existence of these mathematical laws and order is the existence of a mind or intelligence behind them.
4. This mind or intelligence is what we refer to as God.

To understand this argument better, let's break it down and explain each point in more detail.

1. The universe follows precise mathematical laws and is highly ordered and complex.

The laws of mathematics govern everything in the universe, from the movements of planets and galaxies to the behavior of atoms and subatomic particles. These laws are precise, unchanging, and universal, meaning they apply everywhere in the universe. We see this order and complexity in the precise measurements and ratios found in nature, such as the golden ratio in plants and animals, and the Fibonacci sequence in seashells and sunflowers.

2. The existence of complex mathematical laws and order in the universe cannot be explained by chance or natural processes alone.

The complexity and precision found in the universe cannot be explained by chance or natural processes alone. The odds of the universe randomly coming together in such an ordered and mathematical way are incredibly low. Furthermore, natural processes such as evolution or the laws of physics cannot account for the intricate design and organization found in the universe.

3. The best explanation for the existence of these mathematical laws and order is the existence of a mind or intelligence behind them.

The most plausible explanation for the complex mathematical laws and order in the universe is the existence of a mind or intelligence behind them. A higher intelligence is needed to design and govern the laws of mathematics and ensure their precise application throughout the universe. This mind or intelligence is what we refer to as God.

4. This mind or intelligence is what we refer to as God.

The concept of God, as a perfect and infinite being, aligns with the complexity and precision seen in the universe. God is the ultimate mathematician, the source of all mathematical truth and order. As creatures with limited understanding, we can only begin to comprehend the complexity and beauty of God's design through the use of mathematics.

In conclusion, the existence of complex mathematical laws and order in the universe points to the existence of a higher intelligence or mind, which we identify as God. Mathematics provides a logical and rational foundation for the existence of God, and for this reason, the mathematical argument can be a strong proof for the existence of God.

[brittle bramble]

I disagree with step 2.

[ocean crypt]

bruh why

[brittle bramble]

First of all, it's not because it seems complicated that it was done by some higher being or whatever

[ocean crypt]

mhm your actually right

[brittle bramble]

And second, how would a god solve that?

[ocean crypt]

but how do we find out where this complex mathematics equations came from

a god is smarter

[ocean crypt]

wedge united manager Erik five wedge is ready to start the season of wedge united

[brittle bramble]

Yea, but that god needs to come from somewhere

[ocean crypt]

ar eyou talking about norse mythology greek mythology etc

• are you

[brittle bramble]

Why would it need to be intelligent?

[ocean crypt]

because

because yes

[brittle bramble]

[valid tusk]

You'd have to analyze the nature of mathematical objects to assess if there has to be intelligence or not

[ocean crypt]

💀

[ocean crypt]

what are mathematical objects

oh calculuator

[pseudo barn]

closing this thread

[ocean crypt]

shapes?

ok

[valid tusk]

Arguments like this follow the line of reasoning that math is non-physical and so seems mental and abstract, yet it is objective.

[ocean crypt]

Until next time

[valid tusk]

mathematical objects are just the things we use in math like numbers, sets, etc. A branch of Philosophy of mathematics aims to understand in what way these things exist.

[ocean crypt]

how many trusses and wedges are there in this photo

[ocean crypt]

There are several reasons why a god might need to be intelligent:

• To design and create the universe. If a god is responsible for creating the universe, then they would need to be intelligent enough to design and create something that is so complex and vast.
• To interact with beings in the universe. If a god interacts with beings in the universe, such as humans, then they would need to be intelligent enough to understand and communicate with them.
• To govern the universe. If a god governs the universe, then they would need to be intelligent enough to make decisions about how to run it and to enforce those decisions.
• To answer prayers. If a god answers prayers, then they would need to be intelligent enough to understand the prayers and to decide how to respond to them.
• To provide guidance and wisdom to others. If a god provides guidance and wisdom to others, then they would need to be intelligent enough to know what guidance and wisdom to provide.

Of course, these are just some of the reasons why a god might need to be intelligent. It is also possible that a god could exist without being intelligent, but it seems unlikely that such a god would be able to create, interact with, govern, or provide guidance to the universe.

[brittle bramble]

I also disagree with step 3

[tidal garden]

It’s nonsensical to try to attribute our concept of intelligence to God as if the existence of intelligence preceded the one of God

We are intelligent beings as we are capable of understanding God’s creation, which is what tells us how God can be said to be intelligent

[tidal garden]

With regards to your argument, step 2 is flawed. However there is a strong argument IMO in saying that we wouldn’t be able to reason much beyond pattern recognition (as animals do) if we were not, to some extent, able to understand what created the universe

Which implies that this creator thing exists

If it didn’t, there would be no need to have stable and intelligible laws ruling the universe

[supple berry]

Guys God lives in my basement

I can prove that

(jk please don't raid my house)

[mint bough]

if god is so intelligent and omnipresent, why would it listen to humans speaking in their languages and not random atoms in the universe? It doesn’t make sense god creating us like it.

Just to say I’m evolutionist

[tidal garden]

Nothing that God does makes sense to us on a human level

[tidal garden]

So am I

[dawn herald]

Which part that you want me to elaborate on?

[supple berry]

"not everything in universe is math"

[dawn herald]

Math is defined as science of quantity. Anything that is not about the science of quantity is not mathematical.

[sand bramble]

Everything in the universe is maths lmfaoo

If u think otherwise because "emotions arent maths!" It is just because you want to believe in magic

[dawn herald]

There is no definition for math. I defined it so, you lose.

[sand bramble]

Lose what

Mathematics is absolutely defined

It is the science of information and the manipulation of said information

[dawn herald]

Lost at your argument about magic. This has nothing to do with magic. Might as well go and talk to a sorcerer about magic because they know about magic.

[sand bramble]

Huh???

What on earth are you on about

I simply made the point that believing that emotions have some effect on the universe that is not calculable is a kin to believing in magic

[dawn herald]

What does magic have anything to do with this?

[sand bramble]

I feel like you have made far too many assumptions here buddy

[dawn herald]

Look it up, there is no definition on math.

[sand bramble]

You know for a fact that is wrong

If I look it up a definition will appesr

I guarantee it

[dawn herald]

So, found it yet?

[sand bramble]

yes immediently

[dawn herald]

That's what I said in the part where I defined it.

[brittle bramble]

Only part of it

[dawn herald]

The definition that Metactal put up there is so wordy; mine is not. A mouthful is usually frowned upon, and is usually false

[dawn herald]

And mine is an Aristotle way of defining it too. Mine is superior

[brittle bramble]

No, a moutful means it's complicated, not false

[dawn herald]

I said usually. Besides, math is not complicated at all.

[dawn herald]

What I do not like about mathematicians is their prolific ability to abuse notation

[brittle bramble]

Math is complicated

[brittle bramble]

You got a point

But i think that's more universal than mathematicians

[dawn herald]

Okay, more universal, less complicated, good

[dawn herald]

Got a point, never underestimate how complicated math is

[brittle bramble]

Sets are more universal than numbers

Also, which numbers?

Cuz there are a lot

Not all of which look similar

[pseudo barn]

yomum

[alpine wraith]

1

[serene bluff]

Genius

[serene bluff]

We can prove god exists using physics in a way

God is the creator of the world we live in

If we take probability into account; what is the probability that our gravity (Big G) is just enough to hold earth in place?

If our gravitational force was altered by 0.00001 less or more, the world would not be able to support life.

[dusky lynx]

god=luck?

[serene bluff]

God = science

[dusky lynx]

but science has contradictions

[serene bluff]

So does god. God’s not perfect

Why else do we live in a world so twisted?

[brittle bramble]

Who says gravitational strength can take any value

[dusky lynx]

i think he meant G

universal gravitational constant ?

[serene bluff]

It does take a value.

The agreed upon value for standard gravity is 9.80665 m/s2

[dusky lynx]

so you mean acceleration due to gravity on earth..

[serene bluff]

As of earth - the only planet we know of that supports life

[serene bluff]

Yea, the big G

[sand bramble]

well we dont know the probability

[dusky lynx]

isnt god out of our understand by even religious definitions ?

[sand bramble]

like, i could find a million dollars on my bed, or i could not. but just because there are 2 possibilities doesnt mean its 50/50

[serene bluff]

We don’t know the exact probability. If we hypothesise, we come to the conclusion that it’s a very minute chance

[sand bramble]

for all we know it could be probable, perhaps certaint that earth would exist

[serene bluff]

It is. There could be many creators of the world as well. God is neither plural nor singular

[dusky lynx]

isnt probability a effect rather than a cause?

probability(not0) by definition is for events which can happen so that already assumes the event can happen??

probability-!>life but life->probability is what i mean

[serene bluff]

If taken into account that the event can happen. That is why there is always a value 0. For when the event cannot happen

What I mean is that the probability of earth supporting life is minute, hence there must be a mediator (God in this case) to maintain that balance and certainty that earth can support life

[dusky lynx]

so you are saying god dictates probability ?

but probablity of everything can be random and itll still work

[brittle bramble]

Doesn't answer my question

[serene bluff]

‘Only one in a million million has the right combination of chemicals, temperature, water, days and nights to support planetary life as we know it.’. Hence there must be a creator of this world. The term god can vary - given on the way it is used

[serene bluff]

What was your question again?

[dusky lynx]

newtons formula

[serene bluff]

Exactly

[brittle bramble]

Newtons formula isn't the same as reality

[serene bluff]

How so?

[brittle bramble]

Bruh

[dusky lynx]

cool but cant that be random? there is a cool website called library of babel. it has randomly generated texts and yet there is some logical things in it. that can be same for planets with life

[serene bluff]

Elaborate please

[brittle bramble]

Newtons formula doesn't always hold

That's why relativity exists now

[dusky lynx]

but relativity is not true either

[brittle bramble]

Just a better approximation of reality

[serene bluff]

Alright, even if we don’t have an exact number. Imagine if our planet had an altered G. Would we live the same, look the same, work the same?

[brittle bramble]

And relativity still has some loose ends and strange constants

[serene bluff]

That’s because not everything in life can be proved. Some things are just beyond comprehension. That is, human comprehension.

It is true, that’s why relativity exists

[brittle bramble]

But there are trillions of planets so that raises the chances

[dusky lynx]

redefing god in such a way doesnt help at all

[serene bluff]

That’s true, Kepler (some number) can also raise and support life

[dusky lynx]

i can redefine god as that which is and if it already is then it is, no need of proof

your definition is very cool but i dont see the proof of gods exsistence as it can be true without mentioning god

[serene bluff]

This probability supports the hypothesis that there is a minute chance of earth being able to support life

[dusky lynx]

chances dont change at all.

it is rather a independent event ?

[serene bluff]

Chances can change when the variables have been altered

Given on which perspective u see through changes the answer completely

[brittle bramble]

So there is a chance

[serene bluff]

Indeed

There is a chance that there is a creator of this world

God is simply a name we use to address this creator

[dusky lynx]

god=creator nothing else?

if yes then god is just something that can happen

but there is no proof for it

[serene bluff]

The word god is flexible. In different religions and cultures, the term god is perceived in a different way

[dusky lynx]

yeah

[serene bluff]

Some think there are different gods for different phenomena
And some think there is but only one god who decided the fate of everything and everyone

*decided and deciding and decides are all used interchangeably in this case

[serene bluff]

yea, for earth to exist there would have to be a mediator to determine the exact G and other phenomena @sand bramble

[sand bramble]

also, there is an even greater flaw in ur arguement

just because we cannot explain something with science yet

doesnt mean its god

[dusky lynx]

we can define it like that though

doesn't mean its god is you assuming some religion's predefined god

[serene bluff]

what exactly is god to u?

[brittle bramble]

I wouldn't be so sure about that

[serene bluff]

all am saying is that, if there is such a minute chance of having just the right percentage of G and other natural phenomena which allow Earth to support life. Can we really say that its just chance? or is there a greater creator behind it?

[dusky lynx]

the probability of finding life in star system A in a galaxy and the porbability of finding life in a star system B is basicaly indepent most of the time

the distance is too much

[dusky lynx]

you can choose to belive there is , thats what religion is

but you cant prove it

[brittle bramble]

That's for finding life, not making it possible

[serene bluff]

am not nessacarily pointing out its god. im simply stating there is a creator. whom u could take as god

[serene bluff]

this ws on the show 'Young Sheldon', wasnt it? @sand bramble 🤣

[brittle bramble]

Also, are we gonna continue with using multiple inconsistent definitions of god or what?

[serene bluff]

There is no consistent definition of god

[dusky lynx]

how about defining god as the product of existence, if you are sure about your own existence it is cuz of god.

[brittle bramble]

This i find rather alarming

[serene bluff]

aight, my hypothesis is, that if not god- there is still a creator of the world

[serene bluff]

it is, but it is what it is

[brittle bramble]

What's a creator

Believing is a choice

[serene bluff]

@sand bramble im not nessacarily saying its god. If you perceive god as a creator of this world. Then the statistics can prove that there must be a mediator of Earth (or in other words, creator or god)

[sand bramble]

Indeed

[sand bramble]

Why must it be a mediator?

[serene bluff]

well, there must be someone to set the bars so that Earth can support life, no?

it cant just happen, can it?

the probabilites of having just the right amount of everything so really minute. and its remarkable that Earth has just the right amount

[sand bramble]

Perhaps you could think of smth like
"The apple could be anywhere in the whole atmosphere, but its on the ground where we can eat it! It must be intelligently placed for us to live because its so unlikely to be on the ground!"

I mean

There are like

A nonillion planets

[serene bluff]

right, in which some can support life too

[sand bramble]

I think it's pretty much certain at least one would be like this

[serene bluff]

have we found that place yet?

[sand bramble]

We live here lmao

[serene bluff]

even if we did, wouldnt the inhabitants be the same?

[serene bluff]

XD i mean aside from Earth

[sand bramble]

Nah

[serene bluff]

right, so inhabitants would be different

[sand bramble]

But we haven't even been able to rule out aliens on 0.1% of planets

[sand bramble]

Probably not that different

[serene bluff]

and they could be different bc of a variety of reasons.

[sand bramble]

Our build is successful, so logically you would assume other successful builds would be similar

Yeah.

[serene bluff]

would they be similiar in the basis of mind or physical features?

[sand bramble]

Probably both

Empathy, language and cooperation

[serene bluff]

to be physically proportionate to us, they would have to live in a planet with is quite like ours

[sand bramble]

Dexterous and mobile limbs such as human hands and feet

Herbivorous or omnivorous so they can farm

[serene bluff]

what is the probabilty that in another galaxy or universe there would be a planet- just the right amount of distance away from the sun as earth is in our galaxy?

[sand bramble]

Pretty high

Distance is one tiny factor

There are countless worlds at our Distance

[serene bluff]

how about UV rays from differnt stars affecting the hypothised second earth?

[sand bramble]

Who knows?

[serene bluff]

i mean distance from teh sun, a similiar orbit to Earth

the more similiar another planet is to Earth, the more chance of it supporting life

what im trying to get at is that its a very low chance. Bc of this- there should be a mediator or creator of earth, no?

which ensures these chances

[serene bluff]

my darn netflix acc has backfired on me. unfortunately am unable to finish the series

[sand bramble]

RIP

[west mirage]

wtf is happening

[sand bramble]

It is, but that chance gets a LOT of tries.

I guarantee that somewhere in the universe there is a planet just like earth

[serene bluff]

i said minute (meaning a veryyyy small) chance , not impossible.

[serene bluff]

i agree with ya, but its only reasonable to think that there is a creator. Given that the chance is so minute

[dusky lynx]

doesnt have to be

i mean it can be like earth but not in the sense of intelligent life

[dusky lynx]

just because something is very improbable to occur, it doesnt need an extra cause, there is a cool concept called boltzmann brain

probability doesnt matter in empty space with nothing to count time with

[serene bluff]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCpLWbHVNhk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovJcsL7vyrk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apP1Q7v6M7Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WyrVxjGt50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeQX2HjkcNo

[smoky walrus]

div by zero

[supple berry]

okay new question

prove that math exsists using math

[dusky lynx]

Bro what

[chilly crane]

bro is onto nothing

[supple berry]

Nah bro I am onto joe mama

[sweet condor]

is it even possible to prove that god exists using math

people would just say that god transcends math and he could make 1+1=4

if he wanted to

[supple berry]

I don't know how about proving the existence of god using math but I sure can do it using m*th!

[warm wagon]

Hmm interesting

Some do claim that an omnipotent God "cannot" do that which is contradictory by definition though, like a square circle. Not because he is not omnipotent, but because it is limited to that which is logically coherent

[sudden birch]

1 + 1 = 1

[brittle bramble]

God doesn't exist because i say so. ■

[alpine wraith]

exactly

[modern parrot]

,calc 6 + 7

[brazen notch]

Result:

13

[modern parrot]

,calc 8 + 7

[brazen notch]

Result:

15

[sudden birch]

that's what i say

I think some have tried to prove that God exists mathematically. or logically anyway.

The great theologians too were master mathematicians

YOu would not have your great philosophies and theologies without mathematical expertise

[modern parrot]

rockhove

[sudden birch]

that is because it takes a mathematical mind to produce any type of coherant work

so you have Aquinas who tried to demonstrate spiritual things using a sort of euclidean method

Spinoza too used a kind of mathematical logic

well, math is a branch of logic

Math is neccesary requisite no matter what you do

Theology has attempted mathematical rigour in it's proofs

I mean that which comes from the greatest theologian is usually coming from a mathematically trained mind

because you are putting IDEAS together in FORM and structure

You can understand this by just thumbing through the table of contents of any classic theology

there is usually a mathematical structure to the book

and then there is the RELATION between ideas

where can you get a greater appreciation for the relations between thoughts or collections of thoughts other than through mathematics?

[dusky lynx]

mathematical thinkining is just a bunch of implications, and if you think thats the only way to prove something then youll end up with a point which has no definition and cant be proven.
axioms they call it, but what i am trying to say is proving god using math is like already implying there is a greater truth than god which is implying it. (the axiom which is proving the trueness of god)
i dont think we can prove god using math if god is the ultimate, rather to prove god in math we could say something like its a statement which is true for itself, it cant be proven

god can exist in math and there wont be ever so slight change of rigour but i dont think it can be proven god exists

as again, mathematical thinking is based on relations as you say.

[dusky lynx]

poetry?
(there are very weird relations in poetry and dont sound mathematical to me atleast)

[sudden birch]

that is correct

continue

[dusky lynx]

continue what?

[dusky lynx]

i have already got my conclusion of how in mathematical system, god cannont be proved. as proof in maths is just like that.

[sudden birch]

can god prove that math exists?

[simple niche]

nato.otan_32 has been timed out for 5m
Reason: Links Spam

nato.otan_32 | 1239277566435790969

[dusky lynx]

bro the word prove, in mathematical thinking, already is fucked up as there is no real proof

i think god can prove everything exists but it cant prove it through math

[sand bramble]

Assuming God to refer to an omnipotent entity

Yes they can

Because they are omnipotent

They can write a true and correct proof to something which is false

An irrefutable proof to something which is false

And then make it true

Make a paradox make sense

They have omnipotence

So they can

[alpine wraith]

Mathematics derives results from axioms. It’s a closed system. It relates to real quantities and amounts because we designed it that way, but it has no empirical content. You can’t prove gods exist via mathematics, any more than you can prove that you exist via mathematics.

The existence or non-existence of gods is an empirical fact, and the only way to establish or falsify it is through examining empirical evidence. If there are gods, there should be evidence of them, and so far there’s not.

The numerous attempts to draw ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’ of gods through non-empirical methods just emphasises the fact that empirical evidence is totally lacking.

[valid tusk]

It is a category error to place God in the realm of empirical observable entities in the same way it is improper to place things like value, justice, love, etc. as empirical.

This is true unless you have a broader notion of empirical evidence

[dusky lynx]

i think existence is not a very mathematical thing, its limiting to think of it as pure if else

[dusky lynx]

well, we cant prove morality in math either.

[valid tusk]

Mathematics is filled with existential quantifiers such as $\exists x(\frac{x}{2}=3)$

[brazen notch]

+C Forgetter

[sudden birch]

God can also create a rock that he is incapable of lifting

[sand bramble]

yes

teh very nature of omnipotence is paradoxical

[valid tusk]

lifting the heaviest thing is a logically possible action, and making a rock that is too heavy to lift is a logically possible action. If an agent is omnipotent and can do both actions then there is a contradiction as the two actions are mutually exclusive (14). My response would be to define the omnipotence of God as “Being able to do all logically possible things that do not reduce the power of God”. God making a stone that he cannot lift would mean there would be a thing that overpowers God in some way, so God cannot do that thing. Another example is becoming sick. Although it is logically possible to become sick, God cannot become sick as it would reduce his power.

[serene bluff]

I am little curious to know what would be the inverse of this question

Proving math exists using god

[sand bramble]

No they could reduce their own power without reducing their own power

Omnipotence allows that

[sand bramble]

^^^

[valid tusk]

This definition of omnipotence lacks any understanding of modality. It treats things like “a square that is a circle” as an actual thing when it is not anything at all. This sentence is merely a string of letters. “square” and “circle” have referents but “square circle” has no referent. It follows from this that “making a square circle” is also a referentless statement that doesn’t refer to any action. Saying that “someone can make a square circle” means absolutely nothing since it isn’t a thing in the first place. This is true for any paradoxical statement.

[dusky lynx]

what kind of proof? religious proof is just faith, god said its true it is true.

i dont think god can be proven with math though, it is limiting

the phrase "proof in math" is limiting when you want to talk about god

[dusky lynx]

many prople say God's omnipotence should be understood as the ability to do anything that is logically possible, rather than being able to do absolutely anything, including logical contradictions

also in my view, keeping in mind that we humans are the one reasoning, logic itself is mostly made by us. nature isnt very logical we just see it and think of logics. as god is something higher than us by definition, us applying our logics on it may show inconsistencies in our logic itself.

talking about god in any human way is limiting it

[sudden birch]

if god cant make a rock heavier than he can lift then he is not all powerful

[valid tusk]

I responded to this in the message you replied to

[sudden birch]

i agree to that. What did I just agree to?

i agree that the absolute qualities attributed to god are mutually exclusive of each other

[valid tusk]

I'm saying that claims like "God can't do this contradictory thing so He can't be all powerful" do not succeed. This is because contradictory things are actually not things at all. It's merely words we put together.

Like "square root of porkchop" means absolutely nothing. It's words we put together that makes sense by themselves but not together. It doesn't refer to anything.

[sudden birch]

then you would agree that truth can contradict itself?

[serene bluff]

Math cannot prove God exist, because it's flawed

[sudden birch]

neither can god prove thatmath exists

[dusky lynx]

so there is no paradox beyond words?

[dusky lynx]

i think it can. proof can be even based on the idea that everything god says is true. So god can just say "math is ture" and its proved.

[sudden birch]

i dont buy it

can truth contradict itself?

[serene bluff]

The existence of God is independent and higher than math

[sudden birch]

can truth contradict itself?

[sudden birch]

can truth contradict itself?

[serene bluff]

no

[sudden birch]

why not?

[serene bluff]

because it's truth

[serene bluff]

effectively an axiom

[sudden birch]

i do not see why truth cannot contradict itself. Is there some reason for believing such a thing?

[serene bluff]

an axiom

[sudden birch]

why should we accept this as an axiom?

[serene bluff]

You don't have to; you still act as if it is true.

[sudden birch]

I act as if it were true because i was atught that truth does not contradict itself

there is no proof of this statement though

and it would seem that the revrese is true

because we are never able to arrive at the truth

[serene bluff]

again you don't have too, but you still will act as if it is true. Otherwise everything based on science and mathematics breaks down.

"I Think Therefore I Am" Explained: (Without faith, by pure rationalism/ultimate deduction there is nothing we exempt from doubting except our existence)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNdrQ2wf6xs

Hence nothing is 100% undoubtable except your existence. That's why all scientific papers have confidence levels.

Then you can go down that nihilist abyss

[sudden birch]

well its a goalpost which is nice to have in discussion

[serene bluff]

The choice of you choosing to live is a faith. The scientific/mathematical axioms are the same in nature to the religious ones in the ulitimate.

[sudden birch]

but really the lack of certainty after searching so long and hard is enough to indicate to me that truth may just very well contradict itself

and we have failed to reach the truth because it is not there

kind of like counting to infinity

[serene bluff]

Do you believe that, by believe, I mean do you act on that.

Because you can surely try to live on that if you are consistent with your belief, and see what happens.

[sudden birch]

i am not at all certain that i exist

[sudden birch]

i doubt that i exist

[serene bluff]

You must, the fact you are questioning your existence means you exist.

[sudden birch]

what makes you think that?

[serene bluff]

"I doubt therefore I think, I think therefore I am".

[sudden birch]

you are relying on the spose axiom that truth cannot contradict itself

[serene bluff]

cogito, ergo sum

this is going nowwhere

I mean sure, but the life I expereince is real enough that I care it anyways

[sudden birch]

you found that my claim is contradictory and concluded that it was not true

[serene bluff]

What's the purpose of this?

[sudden birch]

i tthink i can cast serious doubt upon my own existence

we shall see

[serene bluff]

But again, that doubt means your existence is undoubtable.

[sudden birch]

beginning with your axiom of truth i think i can cause you to doubt that you exist

[serene bluff]

As Descartes explained in a margin note, "we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt."

[sudden birch]

maybe IDK

[serene bluff]

I recommand read Jordan B. Peterson's 12 Rules For Life

[sudden birch]

what do you mean by the "self"?

what is the self?

[serene bluff]

Humans cannot truly understand it in this realm

[sudden birch]

can we understnd anything about it?

[serene bluff]

I mean sure, let's say you believe in that "YOU don't exist". Then that's an extreme thought.

[sudden birch]

If we cannot understand it then how can you be so certain of yoour existence?

[serene bluff]

You cannot prove 100% certain that I exist, vice versa

[sudden birch]

you cannot prove 100% that you exist

then i cannot prove that i exist

[serene bluff]

Again, I didn't say *prove. The only sound statement is my existence cannot be doubted, not even that it is true.

[sudden birch]

should we accept those things that are without proof?

[serene bluff]

So take whatever you can on *my exitence cannot be doubted

[serene bluff]

Well, you are already

[sudden birch]

but i do dount my own existence which is contrary to your proposition

[serene bluff]

I might be an AI, and you are acting/speaking as if I am a real human.

[serene bluff]

Right, but so what then.

[serene bluff]

It's going to be infinte recurssion.

And guess what I still need to eat, as I subjectively care that

You can ask that question 1 million times, and it will be a loop, if you can't jump outside of it.

[sudden birch]

how can i contradict the truth of my existence unless my existence is an insignificant claim?

[serene bluff]

And if you take that, then why does anything matter?

If you cannot prove anything?

[sudden birch]

the fact that I doubt my existence proves that i do not exist

[serene bluff]

Why does science, math, or even living itself matter?

[sudden birch]

I DO NOT THINK THEREFORE I AM NOT

[serene bluff]

So, what ever you say.

[serene bluff]

But you typed that out means you already thinks.

[serene bluff]

Your rejection of yourself thinking is thinking.

[sudden birch]

what do you mean by you and think?

[serene bluff]

Dude, you really going to play this game. I am not.

Again, if you deduct everything to the bottom, we know NOTHING.

Then we cannnot talk.

[sudden birch]

when you say "I am not" you are contradicting the claim that you exist.

[serene bluff]

alr, dude, are you being serious or just joking?

[sudden birch]

of course we cannot talk because we do not exist. Further evidence for our non existence

[serene bluff]

Dude, then why you are still talking with me?

[sudden birch]

how can we be talking if we do not exist? You said "I am not" and I already assertedv my non existence previously

therefore we are in agreement

and we are not talking though it appears that we are

[serene bluff]

alr, this is meaningless. Leaving

[sudden birch]

appearances can be decietful

[serene bluff]

You are either truly becoming mental or trolling.

I hope you talk this way to your professor and see if he/she gives you an F

I just wasted valuable time.

[sudden birch]

spose that you leave this conversation

and then tyou wake up in bed and say "wow that was weird as dream!"

did you exist in this conversation?

no you did not

only your dream self "existed" and is that existence?

you have no idea whether this is a dream or not until you wake up

if this is a dream you have just not awoken yet

when the dream self walks and talks in the dream does he know that he does not exist?

no

he says "i think therefore I am"

and he is wrong

he thinks he exists

he responds in terror when some monster appears in his dream

until he awakes

had he died while dreaming the dream could have continued for decades

and he would think that he exists

so "i think therefore i am" is a flimsy foundation for the argument for one's existence

does descartes discuss the false existence of the dream self?

[serene bluff]

can you stop now

[sudden birch]

for two hours every night we experience REM sleep or a dream state in which we are absolutely convinced that we exists because we think

why should i stop?

[sudden birch]

so go on and prove that god exists using math

here are some numbers for you to play with

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

[serene bluff]

Do you having a job or school works to do.

[sudden birch]

and you made the most doubtful claim i have ever heard - I think therefore I am that is truly the work of a madman

[serene bluff]

I must leave now to do work. I hope you can stop this compulsion, it's becoming harmful.

[sudden birch]

if you dont like answrs dont ask questions

and dont ping mods

[vivid terrace]

(You didnt answer his question)

[sudden birch]

they do not and should not care about your personal problems with people who do not agree with your propositions

he did not ask any questions

[vivid terrace]

.

[sudden birch]

how can he ask questions when he does not exist?

[west mirage]

Good lod what is happening

[vivid terrace]

?????

[serene bluff]

please stop @sudden birch from making everyone insane here

[sudden birch]

NATO made the preposterous claim that he exists

[west mirage]

Ok loll

[vivid terrace]

bruh the question was right there
why are you saying @serene bluff doesnt exist lmao

[serene bluff]

Well we went to the bottom, and that's bad

[west mirage]

keep yappin rock

[vivid terrace]

real

[sudden birch]

I am trying to convince NATO that he does not exists

[serene bluff]

I explained Rene Decarte's "I doubt; therefore, I think; therefore, I am".