Existance--God is as real as Mathematics

[CK the Fat]

I have heard it pointed out many times that God is unscientific because they only way to prove he does exist is through circular reasoning.

Prove that God exists without using:

The Bible
Other Christians
Christian stories

Now prove that mathematics exists. And you're not allowed to use any of the operations:

Addition
Subtraction
Multiplication
Division

Well, all mathematics winds down to those 4 terms. And those terms are still mathematical, so you can't isolate them from your ultimate proof.

Therefore, it's logical to conclude that if God is false because he can't be proven, then so is math. But since we are confident that math exists, God must as well.

Right?:thumbup: :thumbdown:

 

[Shadukai X]

Makes good sense. But prepare for a barrage of "HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO GOD?" and "That's retarded, you're retarded"

Prepare for anti-religion attacks too.

 

[Infinity's End]

Your wrong, addition, subtraction etc...IS MATH, so if you take it away there is no math...Yah savy?

 

[Voltron]

Makes good sense. But prepare for a barrage of "HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO GOD?" and "That's retarded, you're retarded"

Prepare for anti-religion attacks too.

i agree with you

yes prepare for that and plus we already have one

 

[CK the Fat]

Your wrong, addition, subtraction etc...IS MATH, so if you take it away there is no math...Yah savy?

You missed the point, didn't you?

 

[Infinity's End]

I understood the point, but there is no argument to this...

 

[CK the Fat]

Just wait until Phoenix gets here.

 

[Hidden]

Numbers are a set of artifices useful in manipulating the material world. Mathematics is the process of manipulating these nonexistents. By strict interpretation, then, neither exists.

Yes, the same concept applies to God, but with a crucial distinction; religious claimants would place God's existence beyond human contrivance and therefore argue his existence on a more literal level.

It comes down to a question of how one defines existence. For any discussion to proceed, this must first be addressed.

 

[Tobuoi]

Okay, you're right: God is as real as Harry Potter. I mean, what else do you want me to say? Technically, yeah, his existence is real because people have made it real, but not necessarily because he is, in fact, real. That was a mouthful...

Now, I, personally, am an Agnostic...now, you won't get me nearly as rhiled up as a hardcore Atheist when it comes to whether or not God is real, but as a general statement, no, I do not believe in God. Yes, the lack of proof does play into things, but this is not the sole reason why I don't believe in him...it just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, I don't believe in Greek, Egyptian, or Pagan gods, so why would I believe in a Christian one? And a lot of our world just contradicts his "actual" existence, anyways...

Mind you, I have no problem with anyone of any religion, so long as they don't try to sell me into it and their practicing of the religion is in no way harmful to other members of our human race...


Off topic: is it really "existance"? If so, I've spelt it wrong at least three times in this post...oh, well.

 

[The Big Lovin']

Then science doesn’t exist either D:

 

[Phoenix]

Math is nothing without those things because it's the name for a human construct. So when you're ready to admit God, like the bible, is also a human construct, then we can rap. If you're not, then God is something outside of those things, therefore, you can prove him without them, if he existed.

 

[CK the Fat]

Well I admit that, the only proovable form of God is the conceptual one.

 

[Phoenix]

Then I agree. God is a concept, an idea. Nothing more.

 

[CK the Fat]

Then I agree. God is a concept, an idea. Nothing more.

As can be proven, at any rate. Math has done some pretty big stuff for mankind; I wouldn't say God hasn't either.

 

[Phoenix]

And I agree. They both still conceptual, though, we agreed on that. Math doesn't have a will of its own.

 

[Alaude Drenxta]

Honestly, the connection between the two is so entirely vague and unsubstantiated that I'm surprise the idea in itself came to you.

If you wanted consistency, actually, you could have extended it no further than exempting textbooks and the like, not the operations. That's the equivalent of saying, "prove God exists without using your brain or thinking in a regular path of logic or reasoning."

 

[CK the Fat]

Honestly, the connection between the two is so entirely vague and unsubstantiated that I'm surprise the idea in itself came to you.

If you wanted consistency, actually, you could have extended it no further than exempting textbooks and the like, not the operations. That's the equivalent of saying, "prove God exists without using your brain or thinking in a regular path of logic or reasoning."

The purpose is to show that if we cannot prove god using god-related materials, and if we can't do it for math either, there is no logical reason to doubt God anymore than Math. Unless the logical is illogical, which in turn takes an even larger chip out of the "god has no proof of existing, therefor doesn't" arguement.

 

[Lord of Chaos]

I do believe in God, I honestly do. However, you're combining two ideas that are completely different in their subsistancy. It's like saying that a carrot can't exist because cows don't exist.

Then again, you also get into the subject of metaphysics and what exactly are certain things. Math is a physical subsistancy, or at least, can be applied in such terms. For instance:

The number of people you see walking on a street -- physical interpretation of math

Adding a cup of water to two cups oil -- Sure, the word "adding" is used in there, but then again, how else are you to do it? Because you know it goes in there, it's a physical manifestation. However, whether you use the word "add" or not, it still shows as math -- and science if you want to apply it as such. Selective terminology is not something that you should use to argue with this... though I do agree with you, to an extent. I mean, I do understand what you are trying to say, I just think you could have went about it better.

 

[Alaude Drenxta]

The idea is good and all, but we there IS one large flaw.
Math-related materials are accepted as truth and fact as defined by concepts of reality in their very definition.

However, should God NOT be real, which is to be the general assumption as it makes no sense to assume something is real until you have probable cause, then the Bible is nothing but fiction. I'm sorry, but using fictitious works are hardly logical conclusions to defining reality.

Or, are we admitting that flying pink unicorns are real because it's in a book that has related material?

One who opposes use of the Bible to prove God's existence do not oppose it on question of it's ability to be applied to logic or ideas, they question the bible's merit as a source of fact and not a simple work of fiction.

 

[Lord of Chaos]

That's not necessarily the best example. George Orwell's "1984" was a fictitious book, but, it has came to realistic terms in a manner of speaking. Which brings up the very widely-discussed rule of interpretation.