Proof there is a God

[Ted Grant II]

I recently heard from a friend, who will probably be posting in this thread btw, that some scientists claimed they cannot prove god wrong via mathematics; but rather that they can only prove that he exists by these equations. Now me and him were thinking about this and I figured I would start the thread that proved to the whole sciforums community and the world that God exists. Yeah, I am a major theist and so is my friend, and we both seem to agree that God is a simple equation even without the equations. We are talking not about childish banter but the simple reality that God is, that you know God based on simple simpleness. For example... You cannot have friends if you don't believe in God, you cannot.

These and many other reasons lead me to believe that the equations don't matter, so feel free to discuss this topic openly guys. I want to see the atheists pooring in like rain that way we theists may ascertain... *ahmm*: exactly what it is that makes God so abundantly unobvious. It's the simple things after all that make God so easy to recognize. From commonplace friendships to the very reason it rains.

After all, all of the atheists arguments boil down to a severe personality problem. I have seen so many people who are atheists have absolutely no reason to believe there is no God, in public. Common atheists and further "scientists" you are embarrassing yourself to deaths.

So this is a thread about the equations primarily although I feel we are going to discuss the simples. Please feel free to make pointed attacks against the OP because I really should just spend a few days editing it which I am not going to do. I have made my arguments very precise and there are some that need to be shortened or made more abundantly clear.

Is there proof of God? The equations say so. Let's make this a really popular thread and maybe we can all see why theists differ on their stance against atheists as opposed to how the closet atheists really feel about their "attacks".

Anyone who studies the Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic learns that proofs in these subjects only prove other things in these subjects. So for example, you can use mathematics to prove negative numbers exist (in mathematics). You can't use mathematics to prove that anything outside mathematics exists. For example, you can't use mathematics to prove that apples exist. However, because some branches of mathematics can be used to model the world in some way, they CAN be used to PREDICT something in the world. So, for example, Maxwell's equations seem to predict Radio waves. Prediction is not proof, however. The "proof" came with scientific experiments that "confirmed" the prediction. To prove that God exists requires a scientific experiment, not a mathematical or logical "proof". If you can think of a scientific proof of God, get ready to receive that Nobel prize.

 

[Write4U]

Anyone who studies the Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic learns that proofs in these subjects only prove other things in these subjects. So for example, you can use mathematics to prove negative numbers exist (in mathematics). You can't use mathematics to prove that anything outside mathematics exists. For example, you can't use mathematics to prove that apples exist. However, because some branches of mathematics can be used to model the world in some way, they CAN be used to PREDICT something in the world. So, for example, Maxwell's equations seem to predict Radio waves. Prediction is not proof, however. The "proof" came with scientific experiments that "confirmed" the prediction. To prove that God exists requires a scientific experiment, not a mathematical or logical "proof". If you can think of a scientific proof of God, get ready to receive that Nobel prize.

We can prove that nature often uses the Fibonacci sequence as an efficient mathematical configuration for forming spiral objects, from daisies to pine cones to galaxies. This mathematically functional system seems to agree with the concept that natural selection eventually results in a consistent well adapted growth pattern if given enough time.

I do have a question, could there be a more efficient functional mechanism, than the discovered natural mathematical functions, such as the fractal (self similarity) function? I would be highly surprised. All I need to do is look at a tree and see the fractal function in full glory.
Seems to me that the most efficient way of multiplying anything, is to make it identical to the original (parent) . No need to add or subtract parts, just a copy of the original form.

This incredible clip explains the mechanism which produces self similar copies of DNA at nano scale in human cell division. It is very much similar to an assembly line, a bio mechanical function.

 

[Write4U]

As an atheist I can imagine a causality for the formation of this universe, but it isn't a sentient motivated transcendental being.
My perspective does allow for a transcendental mathematical aspect to "how things work". A mathematically functioning universe seems to be a comprehensive explanation of the universal functional regularities (patterns).

Humans intentionally use known universal mathematical functions, whereas the universe itself uses mathematical functions, but does so as a fundamental imperative of efficiency, where certain physical (inter)actions are naturally allowed and others are not. A form of the mathematical function decides, without sentience or intent.

The uncertainty effect is not an indication of randomness, but a precise mathematical function, too small to be observed, until the function is expressed, at which time we can calculate at which angle the particles' trajectories did intersect and determined their subsequent behavior.

Why would a god be necessary for these functions, unless god itself is a mathematical function.

 

[DaveC426913]

Humans intentionally use known universal mathematical functions,

Humans invented mathematical functions.

 

[Write4U]

Humans invented mathematical functions.

No, we invented the symbolic representation of observed natural regular and predictable patterns. These predictable physical patterns, from the most subtle to gross expression in form, seem to be inherent in how the universe orders itself in a dynamical manner. IOW, how it functions.

Tegmark, Anderton, and a host of other cosmologist and mathematicians admit to experiencing that they are "discovering" these functions, as having always existed and are the essence of how the universe evolves. Universally constant functions which create specific results (patterns).

Then they translate these constantly forming patterns into the symbolic language of mathematics. And then we have an equation, an answer, knowledge.

And if this knowledge and its implications are carefully considered and prudently applied, we have "enlightenment".

 

[DaveC426913]

No, we invented the symbolic representation of

Yes. That is the definition of mathematical functions.

As you point out: those observed natural regular patterns are predictable physical patterns, not merely symbolic representations.

You keep forgetting that the map is not the territory.

 

[Write4U]

Yes. That is the definition of mathematical functions.

No, it is the translation of observed phenomena into a consistent symbolic language of Mathematics.
Note: I do not claim the universe is mathematics, I claim the universe functions in accordance to certain fundamental consistent behaviors and patterns, that is all.
It is humans who are discovering and symbolizing these natural universal functions.

The physical world has

Precisely, and we are discovering and representing symbolically the natural functions which allowed for the physical world to form as we experience it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Note: I do not claim the universe is mathematics, I claim the universe functions in accordance to certain fundamental consistent behaviors and patterns, that is all.

Oh. Well then there's no problem. I doubt any rational person disagrees with that. That is, after all, the very premise of all scientific exploration.

Precisely, and we are discovering and representing symbolically the natural functions which allowed for the physical world to form as we experience it.

Functions are a human invention.

 

[Write4U]

Functions are a human invention.

C'mon Dave, look up the various definitions of the word. You know the context in which I am using the word.

 

[DaveC426913]

C'mon Dave, look up the various definitions of the word. You know the context in which I am using the word.

Yes. It's called equivocation - the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning.

 

[Write4U]

Why haven't you watched Roger Antonsen?

Yes. It's called equivocation - the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning.

Not if the context in which it is used is clear.
But if you have problem with my perspective, let me try to clarify.

In mathematics, a function[1] is a relation between a set of inputs and a set of permissible outputs with the property that each input is related to exactly one output.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)

Isn't it remarkable that daisies grow their petals in accordance to a function, discovered by Fibonacci, and functionally identified (in mathematical terms) as The Fibonacci Sequence. And isn't it remarkable that this same function appears in galactic spirals.

Isn't it remarkable that the natural fractal function (as fractal patterns) appears almost everywhere you look in nature. Our understanding, in symbolic mathematical language, of the fractal function have allowed us put a fractal antenna into your cellphone.

 

[birch]

i bet this universe is like jonah and the whale, swallowed up inside a larger being and that is what they are referring to as god. i guess if you want to worship it but i think it's more about curiousity and wanting to understand everything from a to b. where we come from, what does it all mean, what is the purpose etc. how and especially why.

 

[wellwisher]

When you invent something new, the idea for the invention appears first, then the invention slowly appears in physical reality. Before the first i-pad was assembled, it was a product of the imagination. Then came human activity which fabricated, tested and assembled the first physically based i-pad. This is how invention works. The ancients extrapolated this to nature, with the universe not just appearing, but with it having a beginning as a invention/thought; spirit, which then takes form in physical reality.

When you invent something, you don't just blank you mind, and then take a bunch a parts that you randomly throw like dice, until poof, an i-phone appears all by itself. This is more like the philosophy of a random universe. The concept of God, is more analogous to human will and choice that begins within the imagination; spirit of information, and through cause and effect interaction with physical laws, the physical universe took shape.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes invention appears in the reverse way. For example, the invention of teflon was discovered by accident. A tank of fluoroethelene polymerized and left behind an inert solid that was very resistant to stains. This usefulness of teflon appeared after the material appeared. But even still, marketing the new plastic began as an idea in the imagination, that slowly took shape in terms of physically coating objects and people buying them.

 

[Michael 345]

the idea for the invention appears first,

Surely a NEED for something

comes BEFORE

the IDEA produces a

INVENTION which provides a solution to the need

When you invent something, you don't just blank you mind,

But you might research on the requirements of your potential customers to understand their NEEDS

I'm not sure where your thoughts in this thread are going

If your thoughts are about god inventing the Universe

he obviously did so with no input from the occupants

 

[Ted Grant II]

Anyone who studies the Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic learns that proofs in these subjects only prove other things in these subjects. So for example, you can use mathematics to prove negative numbers exist (in mathematics). You can't use mathematics to prove that anything outside mathematics exists. For example, you can't use mathematics to prove that apples exist. However, because some branches of mathematics can be used to model the world in some way, they CAN be used to PREDICT something in the world. So, for example, Maxwell's equations seem to predict Radio waves. Prediction is not proof, however. The "proof" came with scientific experiments that "confirmed" the prediction. To prove that God exists requires a scientific experiment, not a mathematical or logical "proof". If you can think of a scientific proof of God, get ready to receive that Nobel prize.

We can prove that nature often uses the Fibonacci sequence as an efficient mathematical configuration for forming spiral objects, from daisies to pine cones to galaxies.

You don't need to go there to "see" mathematics in nature. There are big trees and small trees, there are many trees and few trees. There are round trees but no square trees as far as I know. So SOMETIMES you can find natural things that have models in mathematics, but that does not mean that God is a mathematician. You first need to find God before you can examine his properties. Even if you did find God and discovered he is a brilliant mathematician, you still don't know that he created the world with shapes that can be modeled using mathematics. In addition, you still have lots of work to do to prove he is the God of Christianity or any one of the thousands of Gods dreamed up by men (mostly) throughout our bloody history, most of which are no longer worshiped.

 

[DaveC426913]

Isn't it remarkable that daisies grow their petals in accordance to a function, discovered by Fibonacci, and functionally identified (in mathematical terms) as The Fibonacci Sequence.

Daisies grow their petals in accordance to evolution, honed over millions of years, where flowers that receive more sunlight out-compete flowers that do not. Daisies know nothing of functions.

You'll find that no daisy exactly follows the sequence closer than a few percent. That's because its a physical process, not a mathematical one. We can describe the pattern, ideally, with the Fibonacci sequence.

And isn't it remarkable that this same function appears in galactic spirals.

I think you will find no basis for such an assertion.

Yes, galaxies form spirals. They come in all shapes and sizes. If you choose your galaxy strategically, you can overlay a Fibonacci spiral on it, and it will superficially match.
This is not an indication of any underlying structure.

Isn't it remarkable that the natural fractal function (as fractal patterns) appears almost everywhere you look in nature.

That's physics. A few 'laws' add up to complex patterns.

I have idea why you keep mislabeling it as mathematics.

 

[Write4U]

You don't need to go there to "see" mathematics in nature. There are big trees and small trees, there are many trees and few trees. There are round trees but no square trees as far as I know. So SOMETIMES you can find natural things that have models in mathematics, but that does not mean that God is a mathematician. You first need to find God before you can examine his properties. Even if you did find God and discovered he is a brilliant mathematician, you still don't know that he created the world with shapes that can be modeled using mathematics. In addition, you still have lots of work to do to prove he is the God of Christianity or any one of the thousands of Gods dreamed up by men (mostly) throughout our bloody history, most of which are no longer worshiped.

The problem is that ALL things seem to have mathematical properties (including spacetime) and their functions and interactions are always translatable into a mathematical equation.
You cannot get around the mathematics of natural functions.
We just don't know all the mathematical functions yet at nano scale.

 

[Write4U]

Daisies grow their petals in accordance to evolution, honed over millions of years, where flowers that receive more sunlight out-compete flowers that do not. Daisies know nothing of functions.

Did I claim they "know" the Fibonacci sequence? The whole point is that this mathematical progression is a natural function which exists in the abstract.

You'll find that no daisy exactly follows the sequence closer than a few percent. That's because its a physical process, not a mathematical one. We can describe the pattern, ideally, with the Fibonacci sequence.

Wrong, you'll find that only some daisies do not follow the FS, because of an external interference, which might be damaged DNA.

(Re; Spiral Galaxies.)

I think you will find no basis for such an assertion.

I don't, but cosmologists and mathematicians do.

Yes, galaxies form spirals. They come in all shapes and sizes. If you choose your galaxy strategically, you can overlay a Fibonacci spiral on it, and it will superficially match.
This is not an indication of any underlying structure.

No, it's an indication of how spirals form naturally.

That's physics. A few 'laws' add up to complex patterns.

Correct, this agrees with Tegmark's hypothesis.

I have idea why you keep mislabeling it as mathematics.

Because any consistent regular pattern or function which is translatable as values, properties and their interactions. These translations into symbolic language is named Mathematics, by us. A tie knot is a mathematical structure and the act of tying the knot is a mathematical function.

As Antonsen observed, people see mathematics only in its fundamental symbolic forms. +, -, x, :, etc. But in reality these are abstractions of natural functions and the concept of mathematics goes much deeper than 5th grade mathematical problems.

math·e·mat·ics, plural

• 1.the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right (pure mathematics), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering (applied mathematics).

Powered by Oxford Dictionaries

For instance, Morse code is a mathematical construct. A Musical composition (notation) is a mathematical construct.

See also: Pythagorean tuning and Pythagorean hammers
According to legend, the way Pythagoras discovered that musical notes could be translated into mathematical equations was when he passed blacksmiths at work one day and thought that the sounds emanating from their anvils were beautiful and harmonious and decided that whatever scientific law caused this to happen must be mathematical and could be applied to music. He went to the blacksmiths to learn how the sounds were produced by looking at their tools. He discovered that it was because the hammers were "simple ratios of each other, one was half the size of the first, another was 2/3 the size, and so on".

This legend has since proven to be false by virtue of the fact that these ratios are only relevant to string length (such as the string of a monochord), and not to hammer weight.[71][72] However, it may be that Pythagoras was indeed responsible for discovering the properties of string length.

And the mathematical relationships between string lengths and frequencies they produce.

Mathematics is man's greatest invention for translating natural functions and patterns into symbolic language of mathematics. But we only invented the language to describe pre-existing and observable regular patterns and interactions of physical objects.

 

[Write4U]

This may be of interest.

It explains the mathematical nature of the universe.
And for good measure:

 

[birch]

Why haven't you watched Roger Antonsen?

Not if the context in which it is used is clear.
But if you have problem with my perspective, let me try to clarify.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)

Isn't it remarkable that daisies grow their petals in accordance to a function, discovered by Fibonacci, and functionally identified (in mathematical terms) as The Fibonacci Sequence. And isn't it remarkable that this same function appears in galactic spirals.

Isn't it remarkable that the natural fractal function (as fractal patterns) appears almost everywhere you look in nature. Our understanding, in symbolic mathematical language, of the fractal function have allowed us put a fractal antenna into your cellphone.

That is not a way to understand the world. that is just one way of looking at it but it does not enhance understanding of it at all. because none of this answers the real questions that enhance understanding and that is 'why'. math does not answer the whys.