I came across this post today which presents an attempt to prove the existence of a deity using mathematical methods.
Abstract
Based on the concept of prove by contradictions which is commonly known in Algorithms
Analyzing all options then eliminating all impossible options, the remaining possible option is proved.
P(N1)=1-P(N2)-P(N3)-……Definitions
E = Existence (Every thing that really exist)
U = Universe
X = a deity outside the Universe
C(a) = Creator of object a
G = God (an Intelligent Creator)
f(t) = function of time (State), at a specific time t
Y [Fn]→ Z, means using Fact n, Y leads to ZFacts
F1- There is nothing beyond logic, illogical is impossible (Paradoxes do not exist).
F2- Facts never contradict
F3- A fact is true by itself and true with any other fact
F4- Nothing comes from nothing (Cause & effect)
F5- Natural laws are independent from each other.
F6- ∑b=N ∩ N<∞ where bεU Number of elements (or objects) in the universe is finite
F7- U(T) ≠ U(T+t) where t≈0 for all T, t Universe is not static, state of U at any time T, does not equal its state after a small time t.
Here we have the beginning of a mathematical proof of the existence of God using the concept of proof by contradictions. The original post works through the proof mathematically coming to the conclusion that God must exist.
Well there is nothing wrong with trying to attempt to prove theories like this using mathematics of this kind, however generally if you start with a layer of bullsh*t you will generally end up with just more bullsh*t
Lets start with the definitions:
E and X are ‘Existence’ and ‘a deity outside the Universe’ both perfectly logical definitions, except if you don’t actually define what existence is? I might as well just say a=b and expect you to believe me! Also I can appreciate that most people would be able to define a deity for themselves, however without defining what is means to be on the outside of the universe we are just being given another arbitrary definition. So you get the point, a definition, by definition is required to actually be a definition.
Now, it gets even juicier here. The author presents us with a list of facts that he is going to base his arguments against. This is quite clearly not a list of facts, rather a list of premises, and not very good ones at that!
F1: This simply isn’t true, Godel might complain a little here.
F4 : This is the cracker! Nothing comes from nothing. So if nothing comes from nothing, where did God come from. He appears to be starting with a premise that clearly contradicts the point he is trying to prove? Surely not the greatest way to start a mathematical proof. I am assuming the first argument to me disagreeing with this point would be something along the lines of, God is not part of the Universe or God is not bound by the parameters of this proof. If this were true then the author is claiming that the existence of God cannot be proven using his own proof, so er…?
F5, F6 and F7 are all theories, not facts. Also what on earth is a ‘Natural Law’ and why are they independent from each other? If the author wants to use these as the premise for his proof then he needs to understand that his proof can only be validated if and when these theories are substantiated, otherwise I would be eligible to say anything I want is true just to prove my point (regardless of whether or not it is!)
Well I haven’t even got as far as the actual proving of the author’s theory yet, and I am not going to bother, I am satisfied that he has started with gibberish so he is going to finish with gibberish, there is no point in discussing this any further.
But if you want to continue being amused I won’t stop you continuing, Part I is called ‘Proving a creator’ and Part II , ‘Defining the creator’
In my eyes taking a bunch of gibberish and sprinkling it with Greek symbols doesn’t make it true, and to present such gibberish as scientific fact is morally wrong. The author even tries to prove that Islam is the correct religion and all others are false using these bumbling techniques!
