1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Mathematical Proof of God?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by loverofhumanity, Aug 8, 2022.

  1. loverofhumanity

    loverofhumanity Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2016
    Messages:
    10,045
    Ratings:
    +5,342
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    This is a Baha’i article I came across. Please kindly share your views. I had it sent to me by email so there is no link to it so I had to screenshot it if that’s ok.

    B030554E-7264-4187-B143-8A9FE272F69A.jpeg 5A49068D-1509-440C-847F-8EF01E7C2B9E.jpeg
     
    • Useful Useful x 2
    • Creative Creative x 1
  2. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    49,464
    Ratings:
    +46,268
    Religion:
    None
    A much easier and far more widespread proof is E=MC2. Einsteins good old mass/energy equivalence proof.

    It shows that no omni potent god can exist at the same time as any other mass.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  3. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    8,392
    Ratings:
    +10,595
    Religion:
    None
    Isn't this a variation Kalam Cosmological argument? "V is not self-caused" is essentially the universe had a beginning and was therefore caused. And the conclusion is that the universe V must have a cause that is not V or an element of V, is also in Kalam.

    I don't find this argument compelling, but lets stipulate to this proving that the universe has an uncaused cause. Why does this cause need to be a god? The multiverse hypothesis fits this formulation as well. Craig makes the same error in his Kalam argument - simply assuming multiple characteristic about this cause that point to the god he believes in without acknowledging much less excluding other potential first causes.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
  4. F1fan

    F1fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2021
    Messages:
    9,081
    Ratings:
    +8,612
    Religion:
    Buddhist
    It makes two assumptions: that a cause is required for V, and that the cause is a God. This proof can be defeated by eliminating the assumption that V was caused.

    If it proves anything it's that a God is not known to exist.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. wellwisher

    wellwisher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2018
    Messages:
    1,661
    Ratings:
    +569
    Religion:
    Catholic
    God is proven by the math concept of infinity.

    Nobody in math or science has ever seen infinity. It is a conceptual place, predicted by math, as functions reach their practical limits but never quite get there.

    Infinity is where the laws of physics; our material realm, break down since the functions stop meaning anything. At the end of the rainbow of infinity there is a pot of gold. This can be described as space-time breaking down into separate time and separate space.

    There, one can move in time without the restrictions of space and/or move in space without the restrictions of time. The latter is classically called omnipresence. Infinity is the math portal to the other side. Science does not yet know how to get there to open the door, since all they assume is finite, and space-time does not apply there.

    If we take 1 and divide by 0 we will get infinity. We start with one thing; primordial atom, divide it by nothing, and we get an infinite universe of infinite parts??? How do we mechanically divide something by zero to get infinity? The math defies current laws of physics and all modern engineering skills. It suggests the need for a new path that is not from our material world. It will take planning and not just dice; brooding over the deep.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  6. loverofhumanity

    loverofhumanity Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2016
    Messages:
    10,045
    Ratings:
    +5,342
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    It goes without saying that the finite cannot comprehend the infinite. Darkness presupposes light and imperfection - perfection. If there was no Perfect Being, imperfect beings could not exist. The painting presupposes the painter. Because our minds cannot comprehend God does not mean He does not exist, only that our finite minds are limited.

    We do not know all there is to know so it is premature to say there is no God just from our tiny experience in this world which is equivalent to a grain of sand in all the universes in existence.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  7. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    8,392
    Ratings:
    +10,595
    Religion:
    None
    Isn't this Anselm's ontological argument reformulated using infinity as a synonym for God? It suffers from the same defect. It posits that if one can conceive of the infinite, it exists. Mystery does not necessarily equal God, and therefore is not a proof of God.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  8. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    18,734
    Ratings:
    +9,246
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    It is not only not compelling, but totally worthless from the perspective of contemporary math, philosophy/theology and science.

    Yes, it is an old and moldy version of the Kalam argument rife with 'circular reasoning,' and unsupportable subjective assumptions. Not remotely relevant as to whether God exists or not.

    Math proofs can only prove math theorems relevant to math, and nothing more. There is nothing in this so-called proof that relates to math.

    The only thing that is that falsified scientific theories and hypotheses have demonstrated that Natural Laws and processes adequately explain the nature of our physical existence without any necessity of a 'Source; some call God(s).
     
    #8 shunyadragon, Aug 8, 2022
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2022
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    42,020
    Ratings:
    +16,643
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Nonsense.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. RestlessSoul

    RestlessSoul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2021
    Messages:
    5,247
    Ratings:
    +4,474
    Religion:
    Agnostic Lapsed Catholic
    F=Gr2m1M2

    In which G is the universal constant, with the value G = 6.674 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2.

    Okay, that's not actually God, that's gravity. But in the end, we either see God everywhere, or nowhere. How sad, to see only in black and white; to lift a corner of the veil and see only an old man pulling levers
     
  11. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    18,734
    Ratings:
    +9,246
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    The reality is we see no God(s) anywhere. Our physical existence is a very dynamic natural existence and not in black and white.

    The estimate of the universal constant is simply an estimate of the universal constant from the human scientific and math perspective.

    If the 'Source' some call God(s) exists the attributes of God are reflected in the Creation of a very natural physical existence we perceive through science.

    We cannot see the 'Source' but we can see the reflection of the 'Source' in the nature of our physical existence if we believe.

    I am a Baha'i, but I do not buy this argument.
     
    #11 shunyadragon, Aug 8, 2022
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2022
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Altfish

    Altfish Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    14,476
    Ratings:
    +13,074
    Religion:
    Humanist
    Brilliant, that also proves the existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster .... NOT!
     
  13. RestlessSoul

    RestlessSoul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2021
    Messages:
    5,247
    Ratings:
    +4,474
    Religion:
    Agnostic Lapsed Catholic

    The visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum is rather narrow, so the black and white metaphor works just fine I think. Our senses, and the limitations of our consciousness filter out much of what is around us and within us, but we can expand our consciousness somewhat. Until such time as we return to the source.

    “If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite; for man has closed himself up, until he sees all things through the chinks of his cavern.”
    - William Blake

    One cannot prove the existence of God through argument, for argument is a sterile intellectual exercise. But if we take time to nurture the garden of the soul, we can become conscious of God’s presence, and thus we can know for ourselves that all things are the manifestation of His divine light
     
  14. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    215,951
    Ratings:
    +82,850
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Clearly, there should be a license required
    to practice mathematics. People are made
    ill by arguments using it to "prove" God.
    I know...I'm the one who cleans up afterward.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  15. wellwisher

    wellwisher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2018
    Messages:
    1,661
    Ratings:
    +569
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Can anyone demonstrate how, in layman terms, how to divide 1 by 0 and get infinity? Can anyone give an example using a knife? As an engineer this procedure has baffled me in the lab. Why is this allowed by science and math, without any proof of concept?

    If we plug the speed of light into Einstein's equations for Special Relativity, we get division by zero. Relativistic mass, time and distance all become infinite. Mass, space and time all become values that are beyond our inertial universe, since our universe is finite. This place us at a dividing line.

    This has resulted in theories like infinite universe and multi-universe, which all go beyond proof. Physics is nevertheless trying to explain what lies beyond our own universe, when the functions connected to the law of physics break down, since they cannot reach infinity in terms of any proof.

    The simplest way to explain this, with simple math, is for space-time to become disconnected. Instead, each variable now can only work as independent variables, in terms of the math. Space-time places limits for the law of physics. Once space-time is disconnected, these old limits do not apply. There is a new set of rules.

    If you could move in space, without time, then you can be everywhere in the universe, simultaneously, in zero time. This was classically called omnipresence which was a feature of God, as well as space and time not connected. The Atheists hate the word God, but I like to think in classic terns, since the old timers were advanced since many risked life and limb to start at God and try to each space-time. That was the taboo then. Today we have a new taboo; go the other way.

    If space and time were no longer connected, you could not have energy, as we know it, since energy is wavelength times frequency; space-time function. Instead you could only have wavelength apart from frequency and frequency apart from wavelength. This is not energy as we know it, but can become energy under unique conditions if time and space vectors were to cross path; zero point energy.

    In current theory it assumed that there was an early inflation period of the universe, where the universe did travel faster than the speed of light. That can be explained as happening before space-time connected. It required distance potential movement in space without the normal restraints of time. It is an omnipresent affect.

    If we start with 1 and divide by 0, we get infinity. We start with something we can measure like the primordial atom and divide it by the null set, to get an infinity of things we can see. The set is null only because we live in space-time and the 0 is not of this realm. It comes from where space-time breaks down and the laws of physics no longer apply at any level we can imagine with the limits of space-time.

    If you could move in time, without the constant of space you would have the laws of physics the same in all references. There is an overlap between the two realms.

    In the infinity realm, since space and time can both act independently of each other, there are infinite combinations of things. This is a realm of infinite complexity and entropy. The potential between that infinite realm and our finite realm of finite complexity is expressed as the second law.

    If the infinite realm was to cross paths with time and space and linger to lower the entropy, there would be a release of energy/temperature. Even at absolute zero; boom! Something from nothing in our reference.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  16. stvdv

    stvdv Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    16,785
    Ratings:
    +10,110
    Religion:
    Sanathana Dharma [The Eternal Religion]
    :)
    True...very important to realize our limitation
    Good thing about God-belief 'it gives humility'
     
    #16 stvdv, Aug 8, 2022
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2022
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    215,951
    Ratings:
    +82,850
    Religion:
    Atheist
    To divide 1 by 0 is actually undefined, rather than infinity.
    But in math, there are functions with a denominator
    approaching 0, yielding a result sometimes approaching
    infinity. Think of things in terms of limits approached,
    but never reached.
    Note that in calculus, a numerator over a denominator,
    both approaching zero often leads to a non-infinite result.
     
    #17 Revoltingest, Aug 8, 2022
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2022
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    18,734
    Ratings:
    +9,246
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    This is vague unsound arguing from ignorance.' The engineering perspective is 'mechanistically limited only applied science' and really not relevant to the basics of math and science

    You need a better background in math and how the symbol infinity is used. Actually, the symbol of infinity is not necessary in math and may cancel out of equations and nothing is changed,

    Get an understanding of Potential infinity and Actual infinity.

    It has not been determined whether our universe or our physical existence containing our universe is finite or infinite and because of the potential of being infinite it will likely never be determined from the human perspective. .

    Arguing from ignorance again concerning the nature of our physical existence and dabbling in unknowns.

    Very very confusing.

    Enough is enough.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    215,951
    Ratings:
    +82,850
    Religion:
    Atheist
    That's not really an "engineering perspective" anyway.
    We gearheads use math as a tool to make real world things.
    Infinity is a useful concept, but it's just math, ie, good for
    modeling the real world, but not the real world.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    31,261
    Ratings:
    +14,974
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    That is not correct.
    "While objects within space cannot travel faster than light, this limitation does not apply to the effects of changes in the metric itself.
    Objects that recede beyond the cosmic event horizon will eventually become unobservable, as no new light from them will be capable of overcoming the universe's expansion, limiting the size of our observable universe."
    Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia

    Always good to check before you post a message.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Informative Informative x 1
Loading...