Sort of assuming your conclusion here. No one has shown that math is on their side.

Can you demonstrate this with math (or similar), or is it a faith-based claim?

Nicely done. Too bad math IS a science. But then again, theism has invisibility. Don't see how math can work with invisibility. But then again, there's always magic.

And your question is lolabulous! I can demonstrate math for you. Maybe you could do the same with God?

You think? I think maths gives us truth but is not necessarily applicable to the real world, sciences give us useful ways of thinking about the world but does not necessarily lead to truth.

The Rainbow Story is irrational.

Rainbows have existed ever since there were clouds and rain.

Rainbows exist on all other planets that have clouds and rain.

If there were a creator of the universe, he would not need to give himself reminders.

Theists like to call people irrational when we point out the most ridiculous claims in the Bible.

• Rainbow Reminders for God™
• Changing Water into Wine™
• Walking on Water™
• Talking Serpent™
• Talking Donkey™
• Coming Back to Life After Being Dead for Three Days™

Hardly. What was the last mathematical truth you heard of being confirmed through empirical observation, an essential step in science?

Besides, it hasn't been shown that science makes your case either. This again is assuming your conclusion.

Does this thread need a few examples of Bible Math™ ?

I think math is what defines real (for us at least) so I'd have to object.

I agree with the 2nd part.

But how is God useful? (Useful like math)

I also assume that invisible things do not exist and do not add up to anything real or useful. Getting my point nowhere of course (as you correctly pointed out).

And math, by definition, IS a science.

Take one legendary fairytale, add fear and guilt, divide it up amongst various peoples, subtract their prior beliefs (and their money while you're at it), then add your own spin and all that = Religion.

By definition huh? I'd like to see your definition of science which does not require empirical observation. Or an example of mathematical truth being established using empirical observation.

How about you just look up the definition like a normal person and quit being so nitty (or stubborn)?

The switch from science to math is significant and introduces an element that you neglect imo. To establish anything in math formally requires a rigorous proof. The simplest formalism that fits the facts is not adequate ie. Occam's Razor does not apply. To a mathematician the statement "There is a God" is neither proven nor refuted.

I personally have found faith to be compelling but the nature of that experience is not one that can be shared. I cannot demonstrate that to you any more than I can prove to you that I am conscious. You accept the latter (at least I assume you do) because presumably you also experience it and superficially we seem to be similar. But that is not proof. If you have not experienced the effect of God in your life then you reject my claim that it exists. I cannot argue against that. But to compel me to abandon that faith you will require something more than your lack of personal experience of it to convince me that I am incorrect. You do indeed have a burden to demonstrate falsity or logically you can only acknowledge that we have different personal experiences.

I'm already well aware of the definition of science and how it contradicts your claim that math falls under it. Still, the unwritten rules require me to give you the chance to pull a rabbit out of a hat and make your case, though it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

Bible Math Proofs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K_B_1MXKzI

The word "mathematics" comes from the Greek μάθημα (máthēma), which means learning, study, science

mathematics: a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

The mathematician Benjamin Peirce called mathematics "the science that draws necessary conclusions"

Carl Friedrich Gauss referred to mathematics as "the Queen of the Sciences"

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.[1][2][3][4] An older meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained (see "History and etymology" section below)


Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change. Mathematicians seek out patterns,[2][3] formulate new conjectures, and establish truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions. <--that?

A mathematician is a person whose primary area study is the field of mathematics. Mathematicians are concerned with logic, space, transformations, numbers and more general ideas which encompass these concepts.

Mathematicians [or scientists if you will] do research in fields such as logic, set theory, category theory, abstract algebra, number theory, analysis, geometry, topology, dynamical systems, combinatorics, game theory, information theory, numerical analysis, optimization, computation, probability and statistics. These fields comprise both pure mathematics and applied mathematics, as well as establish links between the two. Some fields, such as the theory of dynamical systems, or game theory, are classified as applied mathematics due to the relationships they possess with physics, economics and the other sciences.

I am not neglecting the fact that math isn't proven empirically.

"Empirical method is generally taken to mean the collection of data on which to base a theory or derive a conclusion in science. It is part of the scientific method, but is often mistakenly assumed to be synonymous with the experimental method."

"The empirical method is not sharply defined and is often contrasted with the precision of the experimental method, where data are derived from the systematic manipulation of variables in an experiment. Some of the difficulty in discussing the empirical method is from the ambiguity of the meaning of its linguist root: empiric"

"A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. "

"The evolution of mathematics might be seen as an ever-increasing series of abstractions, or alternatively an expansion of subject matter. The first abstraction, which is shared by many animals,[11] was probably that of numbers: the realization that a collection of two apples and a collection of two oranges (for example) have something in common, namely quantity of their members."

I never said it was "proof" for anything (see my thread Computing > God ? http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...ng-god-961911/)

If they could hook you up to a machine tomorrow and stimulate a part of your brain that to you "felt like God" and gave you the exact same feelings you have when you think about God, would that get you to question your beliefs then, or not?

BBC's The Brain: A Secret History - Emotions

Nova ScienceNOW: How Does the Brain Work?

Nova's Secrets of the Mind
(This last one, in particular, revealed just how that might happen -- brain stimulation causing "god-like" experiences. Obviously I'm not saying that's what is happening to you (or anyone else), BUT that it could be.

Really?You mean that infinite dimensional finite projective spaces (for example) are real in some sense other than as a mathematical entity? Or that their existence is the only reality that counts? Something else?
He's not - he'd be a very poor scientific hypothesis, in my view. I don't think maths is defined by its utility though, I don't think it's a science.

I think of science as the "study of.." and math is the study of shapes and sizes and volume, etc. Measurements make things easier to relate to and use. That's why I said it defines what's real. Things that are real, to me, can be measured. Things that can't be measured fall into a different category. Sounds like science to me

How does one measure God? You surely wouldn't say he was infinite (lol, or would you?) <-- I don't mean you personally.


And whoever says "Oh so the 'study of' potatoes is now science?"......... I can see it now.

The reason I don't consider maths science is because it's broader than this (some mathematical objects can't be measured). Maths describes a whole host of relationships between abstract entities - things which are true and would be true even if the world was completely different. (As an illustration of the problem I see with your approach - pythagoras's theorem doesn't hold in the real world, yet we can prove that it's 'true').

It is a puzzle as to why maths does such a good job of modelling the world (the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics") since its definitions, axioms, theorems and proofs don't necessarily have to apply to reality - yet they often do.
I think anyone saying he's measurable is making an error. To be clear, I was picking out your 'maths is a science' comment, since it interests me and I was curious why you thought that. I don't really understand the rest of this thread - if I'm right (and maths is something other than a science) it doesn't say anything about God.

I wasn't trying to nail home "math is science". Much of mathematics, like you said, isn't applicable to reality (can't be proven true). But so much [more] of mathematics can be applied.. is used.. does define our surroundings.. allows us to engineer, etc etc. Without math, science would be.. what would science be?

God is nothing until a person allows him to be. Math is nothing to, but it's allowed to be because we need it. We don't need God (well, some people might).

The bolded part is actually the opposite of what I said - much of maths can be proven true even though it isn't applicable to reality (eg Pythagoras's Theorem).

Also, science can still be done without maths - the utility of maths is a surprise, it isn't a necessary occurrence (at least I've never seen a demonstration that it's necessary). However, I'll leave it since it's an unimportant tangent - nothing I was talking about had anything to do with God. I'm sure it will come up again at some point.

I think you have a different idea of what reality is. I use reality to describe "that which our senses gather" not "what's really out there" (mostly beyond our senses). Could that be it? And I don't see how what I said is the opposite of what you said. But honestly, it's not a point I think either of us is trying to argue about.


** I see it now. Guess I didn't get what you were trying to say in your last post. I do now. Doesn't change much though. Like I said, it's not really the point I was trying to make.

How's this? Science and math will always trump God (unless he were to come out of hiding and give us something more useful). Nothing that we know can be shown to come from God (we've basically figured **** out on our own and will continue to do so). That's just my perspective.

I think science and rational deduction are much more reliable methods for determining truth than faith. That's pretty much a paraphrase of this isn't it?

Ultimately, I don't think we're disagreeing really - it's just that I also happen to care about maths/science and the difference between the two, but it's clearly a derailment, so sorry about that.

I know what you mean. And yeah, there are differences between math and science, but I consider them to be two things that take us forward in the same manner (through study and mastery).