Mathmatical Proof of "God?"

I don't mind.
I enjoy intelligence being expressed.

 

Ah well.

I've always wondered if proof of God's existence could ever satisfy anyone. I figure anyone who believed in Him before wouldn't change, and anyone who didn't... I dunno, we're very used to the idea of a god that doesn't show Himself and is neither provably false nor provably true. Hard to imagine we'd suddenly give that up because something happened to fit all the right criteria or whatever.

 

Well, to me it seems that someone will never be satisfied if they don't want to be satisfied. A lot of people derive a large part of their identity based on the God exists vs. God does not exist argument. Having that question irrefutably answered, outside the realm of all beliefs, would actually just dissatisfy a lot of people I think.
Either way though, I think it's something that has to be done on a subjective level. I don't think there will ever be any measurements, or mathematical formulas, or some grand sweeping interpersonal scientific rational that is going to answer the question for us.

 

This is why I think they would not accept the "proof". Because it would be so unsatisfying. Those who believed already would have seen so many other things that "proved" God's existence, from crepuscular rays to the Virgin Mary in a tomato to the smile on the faces of babies and man's occasional capacity for selfless altruism in the worst of situations. God showing up and signing a few autographs would probably barely register to someone who doesn't need proof to believe.

I dunno, in fifty years or so when the God equation in all its glacial simplicity can be seen printed on T-shirts available at Top Shop, we may look back at this ridiculous conversation about how NO MAN CAN EVER PROVE THAT THERE'S A GOD IT CANNOT BE DONE HAHAHA THE VERY IDEA OF IT ALSO IF TRAINS GO MORE THAN 30MPH THE MEN ON BOARD WILL ALL DIE and laugh like drains that we could ever have held such stupid baseless beliefs.

 

I only say that because that is my understanding of God - that no body can give this to you.
It is a realization that MUST be for the self, it is internal, subjective, and it cannot be received, only prompted.
Whether this realization is true or not, who can say?

 

It would sure dissatisfy me. I'd have to get a life!

 

There's alot of truth to that statement....that's basically how I feel, I just enjoy playing around with various "what if's" in my head and vaguely working them out based off what very little of existence (by products included) I've observed. I don't claim to know anything really, so this is not like I am actually making the statement that there's mathematical proof for "God." Rather another possibility amongst the seemingly infinite.

 

I'd go a step further and say that, if the question WAS irrefutably answered, those people would respond by changing the parameters of the question.

You see this with the issue of artificial life. People who strongly oppose the idea that man should or even can create artificial life or artificial intelligence change the criteria required all the time. By many definitions, we have already created artificial entities that are most intelligent and more "alive" than a huge proportion of organisms - a sophisticated computer virus is far more intelligent than many insects, for example - but if we are offended enough by the idea that man might have created life from machines, we will find some way for that to either be untrue or somehow "not count".

Same goes with God. Any evidence for or against can be dismissed as not "true" or whatever. In that situation, I don't think anything that resembles what we understand by "proof" is even possible.

 

hi i believe i have an answer for your question:

NO. Your mathematical jibber jabber does not support an existence of god.

the first reason is that you are assuming that matter has existed for an infinite time. we have no way of knowing this, but keep in mind that with Einsteins e=mc2 formula matter and energy can change back and forth. so, my point is, matter may not have always been there infinitely, it is certainly logical to assume it could have had a starting point.

Second, 1 cannot equal 0. if you get 1=0 then you made a mistake somewhere.

 

look up continuum theory

 

from wikipedia:

dont know what that has to do with any of this?

 

You've lost me bth.Reckon i'll stick with atheism pending any evidence of a 'higher power'!

 

I already explained in posts before how God equates to zero, he does not exist. Of course we don't exist by my same logic but lets forget I said that part. Oh yeah, actually we do exist because we are not the sum total, God is the total, and he is Zero.

 

meh.. not really but it is pretty evil rofl..

 

You've started with a fatal error.

"Infinity" is a mathematical artifact. It has no real existence in the Probalistic, Statistical, Entropic Universe of which we are a part.

The assumption of the existence of "infinity" is no more vaild than cutting to the chase and assuming the existence of god.

If you're looking for god-math, see Heinsberg.

 

The other problem with the math is that there are no fractional charges in nature, therefore 1/2 or less than are not functional to the equation.

 

anal sex

 

I'll have to pass; I hear your ass looks like a bucket of cottage cheese.