A question (for the mathematically minded) concerning the existence of God?

I am an atheist. The existence of a deity seems to be neither provable nor disprovable from the other axioms, so the question is whether it should be assumed. In deciding whether axioms should be assumed, the main criterion is whether they are helpful for proving new and interesting results. However, as history has shown, the mere assumption of the existence of a deity immediately leads to a whole host of other unanswerable questions and leads to very few new results. This makes it a very bad axiom to add to a system.

That said, one amusing theology that I have come up with is this: The universe is a multi-dimensional manifold on which everything that has happened or will happened is painted. This makes it a work of art. The immediate question in my mind is what grade God got for this art project? I would guess a 'C'.

If you want math, try Descartes. Here's a very brief summary of his first proof of God. I believe it's from his third meditation.

1. I have doubts.

2. If I have doubts, my being is not perfect.

3. If one does not have doubts, one’s being is perfect.

———————————————————————————

4. Thus: My being is not perfect.

B

5. I am able to have the idea of a being more prefect than I am.

5a. It is impossible that something would emerge from nothing.

6. It is impossible that my idea of a more perfect being than I am has emerged from nothing.

7. It is impossible that my idea of a more perfect being than I am has emerged from something of which I have an idea of a less perfect being than I am or an idea of an equal being as mine.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————

8. Thus: I could not be able to have the idea of a being more perfect than I am if my thought had not being caused by a being that is indeed more perfect than I am.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

9. Thus: My idea of a being more perfect than I am is caused by a being that is indeed more perfect than I am.

C

10. If (9), then a being more perfect than I am exists.

————————————————————————————————-

11. Thus: A being more perfect than I am exists.

D

12. The only thought I actually have of a being more perfect than I am is the thought of God.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————

13. Thus: My thought of a being more perfect than I am is caused by God.

E

14. If (13), then God exists.

——————————————————-

15. Thus: God exists.

I could poke holes in this proof all day long, but I'll spare you.

This proof is a great conversation starter, and a great introduction to logic.

There is something called "The Golden Number" and is a constant that can be seen everywhere in the nature I mean EVERYWHERE. Some people say that this constant is the mathematics proof of God's existence. 'cause how can be this number be repeated everywhere without any explicit intention?, Like cherodman4u said "Intelligent Design".

Even if the number doesn't prove anything it is interesting to read the info of the page.

Also someone, who I can't remember his name, said "If God doesn't exists, surely humanity has already created him with the strength of the thought"

From a purely statistical viewpoint, I believe that God cannot exist. However, people often derive the exact opposite viewpoint. For example, if you were to flip a coin forever, the heads and tails will be equal. However, since I don't have the time for that, in reality, I will get either more heads or tails if I don't flip it forever. I will also go through "streaks" of one side or the other. Where people believe god exist is that they will hit a streak and think 'God is preforming miracles,' or 'God hates me' because I am on a losing streak. Yet Statistics says that they will eventually equal out and no external (god) affects the outcome.

Now you can apply this to other "miracles" in life and they are simply anomalies in statistics.

In the late 19th century, Bertrand Russell exposed the logical fallacies of the major "proofs" of the existence of god (including the popular Ontological Argument of Thomas Aquinas).

In the 1930s, Kurt Godel proved that any system of logic that contains number theory must either be inconsistent (that is -- worthless) or incomplete (that is -- contains proofs that cannot be proven). In other words, the validity of mathematics must be taken as a leap of faith.

If we can't prove that mathematics exists, how can we prove that God does?

i am more interested in why you consider mathematically-minded people to be philosophically objective. do you find some link between mathematical ability and open-mindedness in general, or specifically philosophical thinking? i find that sometimes as a "mathematician" i am caught up in black and white proof-style thinking. this doesn't stop me from pondering aspects of spirituality and their links to scietific discoveries, but does deter me from supporting any religious groups that themselves do not seek proof (of even their organization's history and purpose). I do not think that faith in mathematics is much different than faith in god, seeking that level of stability that the world so often seems to lack. to me, though, logical thinking does not care to dictate morals or actions, and therefore ends up being much less hypocritcal than most religions out there.

Math is proof that the universe is elegantly designed by an intelligent force. Is that force God? I think so.

For the mathematically minded, perhaps Pascal's wager is convincing. If we believe in God and wind up being wrong, what have we lost? But if we are unbelieving and wind up being wrong, we have a terrible price to pay. A betting man would place his "wager" on belief in God.

Cosmologically speaking, the numbers that "crunch out" speak to such a fine balance for us even "being here" (and this is indicative of Hawking's "Anthpropic Principle") that, for me, directed, "intelligent design" seems almost a 'foregone' conclusion. There are too many other, almost "serendipitous" relationships that prove advantageous of humanity's existence at this point in our development, that it just doesn't wash that there has only been random events at work.

You might find some of the speculative dialog surrounding the events at microseconds before the "big bang" to be interesting. Just where did all of that matter and energy come from?? How did that happen exactly??

You'll only find questions, no answers, but very interesting questions.

I have no need for that hypothesis. Man inventented gods because he was unable or unwilling to discover real answers. I believe mathematics is the foundation for everything, not some magical being man created in his own image.