Can mathematics be used to prove God?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K

KnowMe

Guest
#21
thought

'math' is not a physical property. it cannot be measured, felt, touched, seen. it is like thought.

the very existence of math proves that there is something beyond the physical universe - something that exists even if all creation does not. we apply math to things -- we count things, we add things together and describe what we're doing with math. but math doesn't cease to exist just because we don't have any things to count.

& it's orderly, not random. it follows laws, and makes incontrovertible statements about what is true and what is not -- yet all in the most abstract, conceptual way, which does not depend on anything tangible existing in order to be true.

so where does math come from? it pre-exists all creation, and it is conceived in intelligence. doesn't this mean that an intelligence exists before all things that exist, exist?

does the very existence of math prove God?
some very clever people realize this question is invoked by the fact that there is such a thing as math, and they are afraid, and say, mankind invents math. but i think, this cannot possibly be true. math is discovered, not invented. one cannot just 'make up math' in order to accomplish some result they want. one has to think of what they need to determine a result, and then look for math that will allow them to calculate, and see if the result that is matches the one they desire. this is not the behavior of something invented, but something which already exists, and is sought out, like treasure.
Well I know one thing, there isn’t always a full field of three leaf clovers, once in awhile a four leaf clover will be in the midst.
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,526
2,608
113
#23
Well I know one thing, there isn’t always a full field of three leaf clovers, once in awhile a four leaf clover will be in the midst.
Posthuman was showing evidence for the existence of God through a theory of abstract objects known as divine conceptualism.

He wasn't talking about anything in the physical universe.

.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,726
13,522
113
#25
But what about the 0/1 computer language.
yes, exactly that. say you only have 8 bits operating system. that's like you have 8 boxes, that can either have a 1 or a 0 in them. and say you want to express a number. you need one of those boxes to tell you if a number is negative or positive, so you're left with 7 boxes to use to make your number.
binary numbers are written like this, say you only have two bits:

00 = 0*(2^0) + 0*(2^1) = 0
10 = 1*(2^0) + 0*(2^1) = 1
01 = 0*(2^0) + 1*(2^1) = 2
11 = 1*(2^0) + 1*(2^1) = 3

with two bits the biggest number you can make is 3.

say you have 7 bits to work with, then the biggest number you can have is
1111111 = 2^1 + 2^2 + 2^3 + . . . + 2^7 = 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + 64 + 128 = 254

that is simplified of course; we do more clever things with computers to express bigger numbers with smaller number of bits. but still, you can see ((i hope?)) that a computer has a limit on what it can encode, based on how much memory it can compute with.

the same thing is true for small numbers; a computer can only calculate some smallest number, depending on bit storage. so calculations can end up wrong, depending on what kind of math you are trying to do. it is possible to get very bad results if you don't understand this when you write code for your computer to calculate math.

so the problem with phone app calculators is for one thing, the operating system is not using 64 bit operating systems etc. and for another thing, it's more likely that someone has not taken these things into account, and you could get a calculator telling you you have 0 for an answer when you really don't, if it's not a sophisticated operating system 'under the hood' -- another thing that's common is that a calculator only shows so many digits, maybe ten, and any number smaller than ten digits, it just calls zero.
that is what happened when soberxp calculated this:


365^(-1)x6^1000=∞ Infinite number
the answer is not infinity, it's a finite number.
this is what they did:

2.gif

6^1,000 is about 14 followed by 777 zeroes. very big number ((big is still a relative term)).
divide that by 365 and you get around 39 followed by 774 zeroes. still very big number.

more digits than the phone can show, so the programmer of that phone calculator made it just show -- but the answer is not infinite.

 

Didymous

Senior Member
Feb 22, 2018
5,047
2,101
113
#26
since a year is actually 365.25 days, you might redo your formula.
 
K

KnowMe

Guest
#27
Posthuman was showing evidence for the existence of God through a theory of abstract objects known as divine conceptualism.

He wasn't talking about anything in the physical universe.

.
Huh, well I was thinking of the one who created the four leaf clover midst of three, or is that random or as some would say because of the fall of man the ground was cursed thus the appearance of corruption.

there’s about three reason that I know of for that to happen unless you might know of another reason.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,726
13,522
113
#28
yes, exactly that. say you only have 8 bits operating system. that's like you have 8 boxes, that can either have a 1 or a 0 in them. and say you want to express a number. you need one of those boxes to tell you if a number is negative or positive, so you're left with 7 boxes to use to make your number.
binary numbers are written like this, say you only have two bits:


00 = 0*(2^0) + 0*(2^1) = 0
10 = 1*(2^0) + 0*(2^1) = 1
01 = 0*(2^0) + 1*(2^1) = 2
11 = 1*(2^0) + 1*(2^1) = 3


with two bits the biggest number you can make is 3.

say you have 7 bits to work with, then the biggest number you can have is
1111111 = 2^1 + 2^2 + 2^3 + . . . + 2^7 = 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + 64 + 128 = 254


that is simplified of course; we do more clever things with computers to express bigger numbers with smaller number of bits. but still, you can see ((i hope?)) that a computer has a limit on what it can encode, based on how much memory it can compute with.

the same thing is true for small numbers; a computer can only calculate some smallest number, depending on bit storage. so calculations can end up wrong, depending on what kind of math you are trying to do. it is possible to get very bad results if you don't understand this when you write code for your computer to calculate math.

so the problem with phone app calculators is for one thing, the operating system is not using 64 bit operating systems etc. and for another thing, it's more likely that someone has not taken these things into account, and you could get a calculator telling you you have 0 for an answer when you really don't, if it's not a sophisticated operating system 'under the hood' -- another thing that's common is that a calculator only shows so many digits, maybe ten, and any number smaller than ten digits, it just calls zero.
that is what happened when soberxp calculated this:




the answer is not infinity, it's a finite number.
this is what they did:


View attachment 197868

6^1,000 is about 14 followed by 777 zeroes. very big number ((big is still a relative term)).
divide that by 365 and you get around 39 followed by 774 zeroes. still very big number.


more digits than the phone can show, so the programmer of that phone calculator made it just show -- but the answer is not infinite.

TLDR:

you can't trust calculators.
 
K

KnowMe

Guest
#29
since a year is actually 365.25 days, you might redo your formula.
And what years used that for 365.25 is not constant, earths rotation around the sun fluxes for year to year.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,726
13,522
113
#30
since a year is actually 365.25 days, you might redo your formula.
to the Hebrew it was 360 days; 12 30-day months

someone told me, i should wonder if it is not, anymore, because, entropy. because, the fall of man.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,726
13,522
113
#32
"That's how we use numbers in chinese."


Maybe that's why God didn't write the bible in Chinese.

.
i think there's a reason God has kept 6,000 years of unbroken Chinese history & culture :)
 
K

KnowMe

Guest
#33
to the Hebrew it was 360 days; 12 30-day months

someone told me, i should wonder if it is not, anymore, because, entropy. because, the fall of man.
Unless it’s a leap year, lol

A leap year in the Jewish calendar has 13 months and occurs 7 times in a 19-year cycle
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,726
13,522
113
#34
Unless it’s a leap year, lol

A leap year in the Jewish calendar has 13 months and occurs 7 times in a 19-year cycle
they have to keep adding time, to make up for time not matching what time should be.

because, entropy? because, sin? maybe so.
 

CharliRenee

Member
Staff member
Nov 4, 2014
6,693
7,176
113
#36
what you calculated was this:

View attachment 197865

which works out to about 0.00000 ... 00005
((imagine there are 2,563 zeroes after the decimal))


the answer is not zero; it's just too small for your phone's calculator to figure out. you'd need to use something with i think a 32 bit logic? computers don't do 'math' exactly; there are 'smallest' and 'largest' numbers they can process - no matter what computer you use - because of some intricacies having to do with how they encode numbers.

the answer is 'approximately' zero, but not zero. just a very small number -- but 'small' is a relative term ;)
First thing I thought of when I saw this thread was you. I thought, hmmm brother posthuman would know. I do think He is seen in Math, and He is order. However, could I show it, NO, lol.
 
K

KnowMe

Guest
#38
they have to keep adding time, to make up for time not matching what time should be.

because, entropy? because, sin? maybe so.
If I’m not mistaking there’s not a single calander that doesn’t need adjustment, even the atom clock loses time at some point.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,726
13,522
113
#39
If I’m not mistaking there’s not a single calander that doesn’t need adjustment, even the atom clock loses time at some point.
even the phases of the moon don't match the phases of night and day on earth.
God made two 'clocks' in the sky, per Genesis, the sun and the moon -- but they don't coincide with each other. i asked a teacher, why isn't the solar year evenly divisible by a number of lunar cycles? or even a lunar cycle divisible by a number of day/night cycles?

he said, post, you should meditate on entropy.

smart dude, IMO. :)
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,726
13,522
113
#40
1111111 = 2^1 + 2^2 + 2^3 + . . . + 2^7 = 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + 64 + 128 = 254
*doh*

i did this wrong; it starts with 2^0 = 1, that's the only way you can get odd numbers.

1111111 = 2^0 + 2^1 + 2^2 + 2^3 + 2^4 + 2^5 + 2^ 6 = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + 64 = 127





((remembers Bill Gates saying in an interview once, "i don't do math in public" lol))