God is a mathematical equasion beyond our understanding

[protectgoddotcom]

How about Pantheism? Since math is the language of the universe (physics, chemistry, biology), does it not make sense that a pantheistic approach, whereby God is a large complex mathemetical equasion which reality itself ties into?

It is amazing how Math does everything. This very forum is nothing more than a series of codes held together by html files which themselves were created by codes, which tie into a databse (using codes which use relational math), which also consists of codes. These codes are all based on mathematical equasions that tell these lifeless files to perform a certain function when a user interacts with a forum. Physics is no different. When a certain level of mass imposes a certain level of acceleration, the respectable level of force will accordingly ensue.

I believe The Matrix reloaded touches up heavily on this issue (though on a more subtle note). Every person's action and reaction, even their very nature vs. nurture background, is based on a predetermined set of algorithms.

http://www.protectgod.com

[Dr Rick]

Maybe I misunderstand your point, but it appears that by this rationale anything and everything exists, from unicorns to UFOs, as no one can refute the claim that they can be described by an undefined equation.

In other words, if one claims math "makes" or defines gods, why couldn't we make similar claims about leprauchans?
Would such an open-ended system have any value or utility?

I believe you are right about The Matrix Reloaded raising these and various other philosophical issues, but it is afterall just a movie, and not really evidence in support of one particular pov or another

Quatum physics, which tells us that the nature of the cosmos is one of probabilites, not certainties, brings this assertion:
Every person's action and reaction, even their very nature vs. nurture background, is based on a predetermined set of algorithms....into question; do you have any evidence to support it?

[Autonemesis]

How can you tell it is a mathematical equation if it is beyond our understanding? How could you distinguish it from a meaningless jumble of symbols?

[Heathen Dawn]

You can have your mathematical god, but what difference does it make for our lives?

[Heathen Dawn]

About the website--two things:

1) Don't you think God should be able to protect Himself?

2) Even without the Biblical atrocities, the goodness of God is called into question by the atrocities we can all see, such as natural disasters. Birth defects are testimony enough against His benevolence.

[BioBeing]

I assume that you have this equation in your possession? Why not post it, and see if someone can decipher it?

[Quantum Ninja]

Supposing that everything that exists owes its essence to a "large complex mathemetical equation," why call it a God? Mathematical equations are not conscious, intelligent, benevolent, omnipotent, etc. When you take all those properties away, what remains that allows you to call it "God?"

[Magic Primate]

Mathematics might lie at the source of reality, but why confuse the issue by calling it God? So you can sneak him in the back door?

Also, if its beyond our understanding, how come you know about it?

[long winded fool]

This seems to proceed from the assumption that the universe is an expression of mathematics, which seems backwards to me. Mathematics is constructed by humans to describe the workings of the universe. It is easy to confuse the two simply because mathematics is the universe represented in abstract symbols interpretable by human beings. The more we learn, the more exact our equations become, not because we are discovering new and better equations, but because we are understanding more about the universe and arbitrarily choose to assign this new abstract knowledge concrete symbols which allow us to explore it more easily.

If God is the universe, why do we need a different word?

[protectgoddotcom]

Dr. Rick,

You're right in that the rationale leaves an open-door policy on such matters as there is now way for us to truly understand the mathematics that I talk about (which for the records, I by no means claim to have this 'equasion'). The idea of pantheism and my 'mathematical' model would seem to be in complete harmony. The more and more we understand our universe, the more and more mathematical it seems. It is math that allowed us to create/harness maps, electricity, nuclear power, computers. The more complex the design, the more complex the math. I agree that there is no way to "add God up" but we are only human and if there is a God, he/she/it is clearly more complex than us anyways. Not to sound like a Bible thumper, but just as an ant is unable to comprehend us, we are (so far) unable to comprehend God.

As for yourUFO/Unicorn analogy, you are right, my idea leaves nothing to 'refute.' It is simply the idea that our universe seems to be 'written' in math, so if a pantheism God indeed exists, does it not make sense that God too is a complex equasion? About the Matrix, I wans't trying to use the movie as 'proof' but rather an analogy and perhaps an illustration of what I'm getting at (where even the most complex individuals are nothing but coded algorithims).

I firmly believe that science will continue to push this view, but only time will tell.

Auto,

well i an equasion serves a function and carries it out, it is clearly more than meaningless symbols. The fact that our Universe functions and that human discoveries in math have made much of these functions explicible would seem to indicate that it is more than meaningless symbols.

Heathen,

In regards t my "mathematical God" making a difference in our lives, read a physics book sometime.
Yes, God can protect himself but the image the Bible portrays is that of a jealous traitor that plunges a people for their beliefs and human faults. I don't think out children need this schizzophrenic santa Claus/Boogie Man concept of God from an ancient book of mythology. Indeed life can be cruel and much of it points to a malevolent God. But to think so you have to overlook all of the great things in Life and keep in mind how much of the suffering we endure stems from our own faults - our idea of looking beautiful, our need for 'luxuries,' our hedonistic pracitces which lead us to consume our resources, etc. I suppose your point of view on life itself would determine your point of view on God (if He is indeed the pantheistic God I'm talking about).

Bio,

don't be silly I never said I had the equasion in my hand, but rather that I beliebe that scientific discovery suggests my paradigm. Sorry if I miscommunicated.

Quantum,

I think you miss the point of pantheism to begin with and are limiting the term God to a more Christian concept.

Magic,

What I am basically suggesting is that God and Reality can be seen as one (or perhaps even that reality is a portion of God). I am not trying to sneak God in anywhere. "Our understanding" of such matters imporves with each discovery and as I said above, I believe it suggests my paradigm.

long,

I believe that you are confusing symbols and concepts. Math exists no matter how we define it. Don't confuse the word apple with the idea of an apple. the apple exists no matter what we call it or what color spectrum we see or don't see it in. I never said we NEEDED different word. Like I said, an apple exists whether you call it or see at such or not.

[Rider]

My apologies :cool:

I had originally asked for an equation and I was writing my post while you were posting. I no longer seek an equation since you do not claim to have one.

-Rider

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by protectgoddotcom
In regards t my "mathematical God" making a difference in our lives, read a physics book sometime.


If so, then it doesn't. Prayers still aren't answered. Worship of God still doesn't change fate. Natural disasters still strike indifferently. Everything is the same with this God as it is if there is no God at all. So it doesn't make any practical difference.

See, more than I'm interested in if there's a God, I'm in interested in what difference it makes to my life.


Yes, God can protect himself but the image the Bible portrays is that of a jealous traitor that plunges a people for their beliefs and human faults. I don't think out children need this schizzophrenic santa Claus/Boogie Man concept of God from an ancient book of mythology.


Then let God send a fire from the sky upon all those Bible-thumpers and Qur'an-thumpers who defame his name. That would be a clear message. But instead, He needs humans to convey that important message. Nothing new here, though: even in the Bible and Qur'an, God talks through messengers and scriptures, and never directly to the whole of humanity.


Indeed life can be cruel and much of it points to a malevolent God.


Cruelty is in the eye of the sufferer. Fact is, fate is neither tender nor cruel, but indifferent. Fate flows exactly the way we would expect it to if there was no controller over it. So there probably isn't.


But to think so you have to overlook all of the great things in Life and keep in mind how much of the suffering we endure stems from our own faults - our idea of looking beautiful, our need for 'luxuries,' our hedonistic pracitces which lead us to consume our resources, etc.


Humans are newcomers upon this world. The fossil record tells of incredible struggle and suffering for all life-forms way before humans came to the scene. Start with anaerobic bacteria that became extinct when the cyanobacteria produced an oxygenous atmosphere, in the Late Precambrian; continue with the End Permian extinction, in which 95% of Earth's living species died; and end with the Late Cretaceous extinction of the dinosaurs.

From Richard Dawkins' God's Utility Function:


The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.


I think that the whole course of natural history defies any attempt at theodicy. It is better that a God should not exist, because if He does, then He is either the direct author of suffering or a standing-aloof onlooker on it. Not a nice picture of God any way you slice it. The greatest favour you can do to the name of God is to be an atheist.

[BioBeing]

posted by god.com
Bio,

don't be silly I never said I had the equasion in my hand, but rather that I beliebe that scientific discovery suggests my paradigm. Sorry if I miscommunicated.
Of course I was being silly. I did not expect you to have the equation. But, if there is no equation, you cannot say that God is an equation.

What you are proposing sounds like a unified Theory of Everything. Dawkins said if we had such we would "know the mind of God", but I think he was using the word "God" in this context alegorically, as in we would simply know all of the laws of the universe. I don't thing he intended it to mean there really was a God, and having a ToE we would prove God exists.

God (especilally when written with a Capital G) usually indicates (in western culture) a specific god, YHWH. To suggest YHWH can be reduced to a mathematical formula certainly seems to go against the gist of what most christians would believe.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by BioBeing
Dawkins said if we had such we would "know the mind of God"


Nitpick: it was Stephen Hawking who said that.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Autonemesis
How can you tell it is a mathematical equation if it is beyond our understanding? How could you distinguish it from a meaningless jumble of symbols?

Good point. Mathematics is very much an endevour by human definition. If you can't define it, it ain't mathematics. You can't define something unless you understand it. Perhaps protectgoddotcom is saying that (s)he doesn't understand mathematics. Since (s)he doesn't understand mathematics and (s)he doen't understand god then somehow they must be the same thing?

Starboy

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally posted by protectgoddotcom
How about Pantheism? Since math is the language of the universe (physics, chemistry, biology), does it not make sense that a pantheistic approach, whereby God is a large complex mathemetical equasion which reality itself ties into?


I would not agree that mathematics is the language of the universe, but rather a description of the universe.

To paraphrase Einstein, to the extent that mathematics applies to
reality, it is not certain; and to the extent that it is certain, it
doesn't apply to reality.

[BioBeing]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn


Nitpick: it was Stephen Hawking who said that. [/B]
Ahhh, they sound the same... I mean it was a typo... I meant Hawking, honest!

[Calzaer]

Mathematical equations are not conscious, intelligent, benevolent, omnipotent, etc.

Yes they are. They're conscios, intelligent, malicious, omnipotent... and they hate me.

HD:
See, more than I'm interested in if there's a God, I'm in interested in what difference it makes to my life.

Ask not what your god can do for you....! ;)

[streamline]

...I, too, have always felt that a mathematical equation best describes all these gods I keep hearing about ---

0+0=0

"What I am basically suggesting is that God and Reality can be seen as one (or perhaps even that reality is a portion of God). I am not trying to sneak God in anywhere. "Our understanding" of such matters imporves with each discovery and as I said above, I believe it suggests my paradigm."

"What I am basically suggesting is that Gleep and Reality can be seen as one (or perhaps even that reality is a portion of Gleep). I am not trying to sneak Gleep in anywhere. "Our understanding" of such matters imporves with each discovery and as I said above, I believe it suggests my paradigm."

There, I think I have just shown that Gleep is where it's at, and not this G-o-d entity. No?

[premjan]

may be describable by mathematics, since mathematics is just a quantitative tool.

try Spinoza. his God was inspired by the structure of Euclidean geometry theorems.

[orpheus last chant]

I agree that there is no way to "add God up" but we are only human and if there is a God, he/she/it is clearly more complex than us anyways


Yes, do notice your own use of if . If this is suppose to be an argument, it's a bad one. Just because ther could be a god that we cannot understand is no proof for his existance. That would be fallacious.
And what do you understand by complexity?


Not to sound like a Bible thumper, but just as an ant is unable to comprehend us, we are (so far) unable to comprehend God.


And not to sound to unoriginal in my humor, but just as an ant is unable to comprehend us, we are (so far) unable to comprehend Zeus.
If you (as a fellow human) cannot comprehend him, how do you know he exists?


But to think so you have to overlook all of the great things in Life and keep in mind how much of the suffering we endure stems from our own faults - our idea of looking beautiful, our need for 'luxuries,' our hedonistic pracitces which lead us to consume our resources, etc.


No offence but why are the above noted bad things ? Why is it so bad to want to be beautiful, and how can that cause suffering? AFAIK it brings compliments.


What I am basically suggesting is that God and Reality can be seen as one (or perhaps even that reality is a portion of God)


How can you suggest anything of god, since you admittedly don't understand him? There is a danger in making terms loose. They loose meaning. So if god is reality, there is no need to call it god.


I believe that you are confusing symbols and concepts. Math exists no matter how we define it. Don't confuse the word apple with the idea of an apple. the apple exists no matter what we call it or what color spectrum we see or don't see it in. I never said we NEEDED different word. Like I said, an apple exists whether you call it or see at such or not.



Math does not exist, unless, maybe, you are trying to revive plato's ideal forms. And your analogy is wrong. An apple is a material object. While math is a collection of abstract concepts and rules that only exist in our minds. Do not confuse the realms of abstract thought and material realm.

[DMB]

Well I like the old joke:
And god said:
<Schrodinger's Wave Equation>*
And there was light.
*Sorry I'm not sure how to bring in the necessary symbols to write the equation mathematically

[Starboy]

Originally posted by DMB
Well I like the old joke:

*Sorry I'm not sure how to bring in the necessary symbols to write the equation mathematically

I goes like this:

God said:

<Maxwell's equations>

And then there was light!

Starboy

[xorbie]

Originally posted by Starboy
I goes like this:

God said:

<Maxwell's equations>

And then there was light!

Starboy

Woot! I have a shirt with that on it from (surprise) MIT.

Now, back to the thread. I think the point the OP was making is that there are several God-like qualities that math might have. Perhaps there is one fundamental mathematical formula that describes all of reality (omniscience) and gives us the power to alter it (omnipotence). Sure, the math is not self-aware or benevolent per se, but calling it God is only getting it through the door halfway.

Also, the "did we discover or invent math?" debate is a very interesting one, and my position on it is the idealistic Platonic one - I think mathematical identities are fundamentally part of the universe. Everything in the universe can in fact be described mathematically to some extent, even though admidedly somewhat vaguely at times. The reason I hold this belief is that either math is something that we invented that through the greatest stroke of genius of all time has proved to be this helpful, or it is simply there and we just discovered it. I mean, what are the odds of some ancient Greek dudes saying "aha a triangle has 180 degrees" and making a couple axioms and then a couple thousand years later we have tensors, differential geometry and a General Theory of Relativity. It just seems like there is more to it, but I am not steadfast in my belief.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by xorbie
… I think mathematical identities are fundamentally part of the universe.

Did you mean all possible mathematical identities or only the ones that appear to be fundamentally part of the universe (at least for now)?

Starboy