Just a fun little thing; post any mathematical formulas you believe prove the existence of a god. I would have put this in Mad Scientists, but that would remove the fun from it.

I actually saw one on Mescaline once; didn't care to write it down, it didn't seem like an important thing to do at the time.

I think that's impossible.

It may be possible from a logical or philosophical equation though. Can we use those?

Yes, anything in the form of an equation or proof is welcome; whether it be mathematical or philosophical.

The cosmological argument for the existence of God is an a priori argument which means it relies on our observations of the world to give it credence. There are in fact three versions of this argument, the kinetological, the aetiological and the argument from contingency. These were all written down by St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica and comprised the first three of his “Quinque Viae”, the five ways in which we can know that God exists. Aquinas was one of the earliest proponents of this argument and we will consider his arguments first before looking at some of its variations. Aquinas was familiar with the works the famous empiricist Aristotle and this shows in his a posteriori arguments concerning causation.

The first of Aquinas’ arguments is the kinetological argument, this states that from observation of the world it is clear that there is motion, and this motion is the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. This means that an object has the possibility to move and as it does this ‘would-be’ becomes an actuality or ‘actually is’ movement. This is similar to Aristotle’s idea of an efficient cause, where x is what produces y. In this case the movement from potentiality to actuality is what produces motion. In modern scientific terms this is similar to an object above the surface of the earth possessing potential energy and when allowed to fall the potential energy is gradually converted into kinetic energy. Whatever is moved is moved by another object which is itself actual and this leads us to conclude that there is a chain of movements stretching backwards in time. We must then consider whether there is a beginning to this chain or an infinite recession of time. If there was an infinite regression then time must be infinite and as this would mean it is impossible to measure time we must conclude that time is not infinite. We must accede that there is therefore a first move created by a first mover which is itself unmoved, and this we call God.

The second argument that Aquinas puts forward is the aetiological argument which argues that God must exist as the first cause to the chain of causation that is evident from observation of the world. He argues that all events are the effects of prior causes and that this chain stretches back in time and also cannot be infinite, pointing to an original cause which is itself uncaused. This is the object which Aquinas calls God.

The final argument of the three that Aquinas puts forward in the Quinque Viae is the argument from contingency. This says that everything in our universe exists contingently. This means that it might just have well not existed. If everything in the universe is contingent, then the universe itself must be contingent. Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence, for example my painting exists because I chose to draw that particular scene. It is contingent because I could just have well drawn some other picture, but I chose this picture and this is the reason it exists, because I chose it over other possible pictures. The universe as a contingent object must therefore have a reason for its existence. The reason must be that a being whose existence is necessary caused it. Because this being’s existence is necessary it can cause the universe to exist with no problems. This necessary being can therefore either cause itself or be caused by another necessary being. The problem we have is then that this necessary being could be caused by another and this caused by another and so on. What we have is an infinite regress of necessary beings. This can be avoided by application of Occam’s razor which states that you shouldn’t make more assumptions than necessary. For example if I see that my car doesn’t start then it makes more sense that I have run out of petrol than the spark plugs have been stolen by clowns, because the latter theory would require me to explain how I know they are stolen, why I suspect clowns to steal them, and why a clown would be inclined to steal them in the first place. The first theory is preferred because it allows me to reduce the assumptions that I must make in my argument. Therefore we will say that the necessary being that causes the contingent universe to exist has a necessary existence internal to itself, which therefore reduces the number of necessary beings we must assume to exist. This necessary being who allowed the universe to be created is whom Aquinas identifies as God.

These are the three arguments that Aquinas puts forward, and as we can see they follow quite a similar trend. They all refute the idea of an infinite regression in either time or being, and they all rely on the way in which humans interpret the space-time continuum to put forward their point.

One of the variations of Aquinas’ version of the cosmological argument is known as the Kalam argument and was developed by Muslim philosophers, although it originated with Christian thinkers who were attempting to disprove the Greek idea that matter is eternal. The Kalam argument argues that from observation of the world it is evident that everything that has a beginning of existence has a cause for its existence. The universe exists now and must at one time not have existed as certain mathematical proofs show that the past can’t be infinite. If the universe exists now then it must have once been caused. Its cause is what we call God.

An example of a mathematical proof that the past can’t be infinite would be the case that it is impossible to travel through an infinite period of time. If time was infinite then this moment to the next moment would be an infinity and therefore we can’t ever get to the next moment. From observations of the world we know that we can travel from one moment to the next moment, and therefore that the past can’t be infinite.

0 x infinity = 0

Edit: Dunno why but I'm sure it has some significance.

[This message has been edited by ---Beany--- (edited 04-20-2005).]

If you multiply the dimensions of a CUBE by the rotations the Earth makes in ONE HUNDRED orbits or years around the sun...

You come up with the perfect circumference of the EARTH...

The CUBE mystically appears in every religion connected to the Earth...

The throne of Brahma, the Creator God of Hinduism, sits on a CUBE...

The Holies of Holies in the Old Testament was a CUBE...

In the book of Revelation, John gives the dimensions of Heaven ascending to Earth as a CUBE...

The Kabbah in Mecca, the center of Muslim faith, is a CUBE...

It also appears in the myths of Buddism, Egypt and Greece...

The HUNDRED year link also appears in every religion...

Braham lived to be a HUNDRED, and Hindu myth says his age is the basis for the measurement of the Earth and the Heavens...

Abraham (Brahma with an A) was exactly 100 years old when Sara gave birth to Isaac, the Father of IS RA EL...

Hermes, a Greek son of a god, has 36,525 books of gods wisdom to measure the Earth. 36,525 (days in 100 years)...

Thoth and Buddha also have 100 year old stories in those myths...

This is the FORMULA for EARTH...

A CUBE has 6 sides 8 corners and 12 lines of dimensions...

It is mathematically expressed 6812 as a Euclid form...

.6812 X 36,525 = 24,881

The Earth has two base measurements...

The equatorial circumference is 24,902

The polar circumference is 24,860

The mean average is exactly 24,881

Remember .6812 X 36,525 = 24,881

That's dimensions of CUBE X 100 years revolutions or days..

Every planet and it's orbit are simple fractions of the Circumference Ratio Earth And The Orbit Rotations...

Circumference Ratio Earth And The Orbit Rotations = C. R. E. A. T. O. R.

For instance Pluto's orbit is a perfect 1% of the Earth's Circumference or 248.8

Mercury's circumfence is a perfect 40%

Uranus's circumference is a perfect 400%

Even Dante foretold that the heavens revolved around the measurements of EARTH...

Dante Paradisio Canto 27 line 115 - "No other heaven measures this sphere's motion, but it serves as the measure for the rest."

* ~ * ~ *

While none of that proved God scientifically, I think it gives a little peek into the perfection of Creation, which indicates an Intelligent Designer.

Chaos couldn't possibly have gotten everything this perfectly mathematical.

Dr. William Hatcher, PhD of Mathematics

1. http://www.onecountry.org/e144/e14416as_Minimalism_Review.htm

2. http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/17/4031d9166ab57

3. An excerpt from his book "Love, Power, and Justice: The Dynamics of Authentic Morality" http://www.onecountry.org/e102/e10214xs.htm

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-20-2005).]

"a virtually bulletproof argument for a single, universal, and eternal First Cause"

Not even close to the same thing

as a loving caring intelligent

man-like god.

"He inferred that the universe itself, then, cannot bring any of its own components into being, as it could not have existed before the existence of the components.

He concluded that G is the unique uncaused phenomenon, because, as the cause of everything, it can't be caused by something else."

So there is more to reality than

the 3-dimensional material we observe?

And that is where the causes are?

But why call it "god"?

[This message has been edited by Viraljimmy (edited 04-20-2005).]

"By the term reality we mean the totality of existence, everything there is."

And the reality that we know is a small

island of sanity, in the madness that

is all of reality.

We have no idea of the big picture,

and invent simple myths to hide that.

Our universe doesn't appear to be

completely random and arbitrary,

but it doesn't seem to be a morality

play either.

If "God" set this all up, then he

did a good job of covering his tracks.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The CUBE mystically appears in every religion connected to the Earth...

Interesting.

Are you validating other faiths here?

Could your bible just be another shadow

like all these others?

Besides, you can do all kinds of

bullshit with these number games.

I type out all my shit and no-one even replies to it?

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

We must accede that there is therefore a first move created by a first mover which is itself unmoved, and this we call God.

But there is no evidence of the moral

anthropomorphic properties that

monotheism attributes to it.

There is no proof of any kind for

the "god" of the torah, bible, etc.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

0 x infinity = 0

Edit: Dunno why but I'm sure it has some significance.



0*infinity isn't zero, at least not in integral calculus.

[Fd^3(J-m)][(m/s^2)(kg*m/s^2)]=God

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

While none of that proved God scientifically, I think it gives a little peek into the perfection of Creation, which indicates an Intelligent Designer.

Chaos couldn't possibly have gotten everything this perfectly mathematical.

Technically, you're wrong. If chaos didn't make things perfectly, then our existence would be null. The mere fact that we are here, talking about this means that if chaos did breed us, we were right on the head of the nail. Remember, probability like that only works going forward. Saying it is mathematically impossible for a coin to land heads 100 times in a row without the aid of a human's guiding hand means nothing when it has already happened. Saying something is impossible does not preclude it's existence after its own definition guarentees it. The gist: Your proof is wrong, but DAMN was it interesting and cool.

"probability like that only works going forward"

We can use probability to make

judgements about the past.

If we rolled 1 million dice once,

and got 1 million sixes,

we could reasonably believe

it wasn't random chance.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

"probability like that only works going forward"

We can use probability to make

judgements about the past.

If we rolled 1 million dice once,

and got 1 million sixes,

we could reasonably believe

it wasn't random chance.

Sorta.

I know this is off topic, but if we rolled 1 million dice 10^3912674387439287398742283 times, and got 1 million sixes, it might be a different story.

The key to proving the existence of G-d through mathematics is unlocking the secrets of the circle.

This most likely will be done by accident once people realize that the circle is the only way to time travel and begin researching it. The key lies in the numbers represented by pi and e. Something like time of the speed of light traveling (i.e traveling at the speed of light =1) times pi which is key to the deformity in time-space created by a circular body divided by e which represents the circle in nature gives you the relative time you are traveling. I had the actual equation a few years ago, I hit it while on salvia. I had figured out the exact speed at which you would need to travel and the density of the circle (think contained black hole) of which you would travel around. The key is to travel through time sub-light speed which is only possible when following a black hole orbit (its mass dents space time enough for this to be possible)

A few weeks after this was figured out I was diagnosed with Chrons Disease, my mom went blind and my family life fell to shit (we also went bankrupt). The papers eventually got lost and for the life of me I can no longer remember what I had but the significance is clear. The essence of G-d is time and the essence of time is its mass, pi and e... I really wish I hadn't lost those papers... oh well it's probably something I shouldn't have anyways. Because it would eventually lead to the manipulation of time and eventual destruction of G-d himself (as well as all of creation).

Aphelion: It's a posteriori when it relies on our perceptions. a priori means it is independent of perception.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

0 x infinity = 0

Edit: Dunno why but I'm sure it has some significance.



No it doesn't equal zero.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Chaos couldn't possibly have gotten everything this perfectly mathematical.

Haven't I gotten through to you at all? Infinite time = infinite possibility. We had a discussion about this, I believe.

Interesting factoids, though I would be inclined to think they are largely incidental.

"Circumference Ratio Earth And The Orbit Rotations = C. R. E. A. T. O. R."

That one I take issue with, though. English didn't even exist when the mathematics for circumference and orbits were formulated - and it certainly didn't when earth was created.

Infinity is a property, not a number.

Actually infinity is a label for the sums of all real numbers. Its not a property.

And DS, John doesnt say it was a cube. There is evidence that it might be a pyramid. Which then connotes things relating to Egypt and whatnot.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

Aphelion: It's a posteriori when it relies on our perceptions. a priori means it is independent of perception.

No it doesn't equal zero.

Yeh, I know that? Did I say it the other way round or something?

You know you stole that from SOLLOG, Digital_Savior.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



The CUBE mystically appears in every religion connected to the Earth...



I might just have to start worshipping the Rubix cube and those who have solved it...

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

I type out all my shit and no-one even replies to it?

I highly doubt you typed all of that, looks like a ctrl-v to me.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Actually infinity is a label for the sums of all real numbers. Its not a property.



Webster says it is "the quality of being extending indefinitely", thus a property...

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

The cosmological argument for the existence of God is an a priori argument which means it relies on our observations of the world to give it credence. There are in fact three versions of this argument, the kinetological, the aetiological and the argument from contingency. These were all written down by St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica and comprised the first three of his “Quinque Viae”, the five ways in which we can know that God exists. Aquinas was one of the earliest proponents of this argument and we will consider his arguments first before looking at some of its variations. Aquinas was familiar with the works the famous empiricist Aristotle and this shows in his a posteriori arguments concerning causation.

The first of Aquinas’ arguments is the kinetological argument, this states that from observation of the world it is clear that there is motion, and this motion is the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. This means that an object has the possibility to move and as it does this ‘would-be’ becomes an actuality or ‘actually is’ movement. This is similar to Aristotle’s idea of an efficient cause, where x is what produces y. In this case the movement from potentiality to actuality is what produces motion. In modern scientific terms this is similar to an object above the surface of the earth possessing potential energy and when allowed to fall the potential energy is gradually converted into kinetic energy. Whatever is moved is moved by another object which is itself actual and this leads us to conclude that there is a chain of movements stretching backwards in time. We must then consider whether there is a beginning to this chain or an infinite recession of time. If there was an infinite regression then time must be infinite and as this would mean it is impossible to measure time we must conclude that time is not infinite. We must accede that there is therefore a first move created by a first mover which is itself unmoved, and this we call God.

The second argument that Aquinas puts forward is the aetiological argument which argues that God must exist as the first cause to the chain of causation that is evident from observation of the world. He argues that all events are the effects of prior causes and that this chain stretches back in time and also cannot be infinite, pointing to an original cause which is itself uncaused. This is the object which Aquinas calls God.

The final argument of the three that Aquinas puts forward in the Quinque Viae is the argument from contingency. This says that everything in our universe exists contingently. This means that it might just have well not existed. If everything in the universe is contingent, then the universe itself must be contingent. Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence, for example my painting exists because I chose to draw that particular scene. It is contingent because I could just have well drawn some other picture, but I chose this picture and this is the reason it exists, because I chose it over other possible pictures. The universe as a contingent object must therefore have a reason for its existence. The reason must be that a being whose existence is necessary caused it. Because this being’s existence is necessary it can cause the universe to exist with no problems. This necessary being can therefore either cause itself or be caused by another necessary being. The problem we have is then that this necessary being could be caused by another and this caused by another and so on. What we have is an infinite regress of necessary beings. This can be avoided by application of Occam’s razor which states that you shouldn’t make more assumptions than necessary. For example if I see that my car doesn’t start then it makes more sense that I have run out of petrol than the spark plugs have been stolen by clowns, because the latter theory would require me to explain how I know they are stolen, why I suspect clowns to steal them, and why a clown would be inclined to steal them in the first place. The first theory is preferred because it allows me to reduce the assumptions that I must make in my argument. Therefore we will say that the necessary being that causes the contingent universe to exist has a necessary existence internal to itself, which therefore reduces the number of necessary beings we must assume to exist. This necessary being who allowed the universe to be created is whom Aquinas identifies as God.

These are the three arguments that Aquinas puts forward, and as we can see they follow quite a similar trend. They all refute the idea of an infinite regression in either time or being, and they all rely on the way in which humans interpret the space-time continuum to put forward their point.

One of the variations of Aquinas’ version of the cosmological argument is known as the Kalam argument and was developed by Muslim philosophers, although it originated with Christian thinkers who were attempting to disprove the Greek idea that matter is eternal. The Kalam argument argues that from observation of the world it is evident that everything that has a beginning of existence has a cause for its existence. The universe exists now and must at one time not have existed as certain mathematical proofs show that the past can’t be infinite. If the universe exists now then it must have once been caused. Its cause is what we call God.

An example of a mathematical proof that the past can’t be infinite would be the case that it is impossible to travel through an infinite period of time. If time was infinite then this moment to the next moment would be an infinity and therefore we can’t ever get to the next moment. From observations of the world we know that we can travel from one moment to the next moment, and therefore that the past can’t be infinite.



too long/didn't read

Heh, seriously, use paragraphings and try to summarize a bit...its far too much...

quote:Originally posted by Experimental:

Webster says it is "the quality of being extending indefinitely", thus a property...



That's not a mathematical definition of infinity though...when doing math, use math terminology perhaps?