The God Factor

[Mehreen]

Mathematics over many decades now has been solving difficult issues of the universe pertaining to the laws of physics? Would science be ever able to come up with calculations/formulae to substantiate the existence of God?

[Bernard]

The basic question to be answered before any other one is: Does God exist? The second one would be: What god are we talking about? The Christian God?

[Mehreen]

Bernard wrote: "The basic question to be answered before any other one is: Does God exist? The second one would be: What god are we talking about? The Christian God?"

There is only one God.

[Aiden]

Bernard makes a good point. You can't adopt a scientific approach unless you are ready to accept god or gods may or may not exist, and be open to either outcome, otherwise your experiment is trying to prove something you want to be right, rather than looking at the data and working out what is it telling us about the universe, what is actually happening. Science needs open-mindedness and adopt rigorous scrutiny.

Take the case in point when scientists were looking at the expansion of the universe and trying to work out how fast it was decelerating. They found the complete opposite, that it was accelerating apart. This led to Dark Energy and a whole realm of scientific thought that no one could have imagined before then. They had to have open mindedness and yet be rigorous with their analysis of the data to come to this conclusion.

Science is about evidence and observation, and repeat-ability, so how do you come up with an experiment for god or gods when religious belief in greater powers is based on faith? I have no idea how you would do this, except look elsewhere and learn as much as you can about what we can test and observe. Eventually tangent discoveries might answer this question, coming from places we least expect it to.

Likely Relativity explaining the strange orbits of Mercury, or why certain particles falling into our atmosphere take longer to decay than the same particles observed in a laboratory.

But who really knows what we might find. One day we might make a scientific/mathematics discovery that shows us that the question about the existence of god(s) is not the right question at all. It might not even be a relevant question anymore. What we think of as a god might be completely off track. Some bigger or more confounding mystery might replace our notion of 'gods'. We might all get more excited about the new mystery, and the god question becomes irrelevant.

Or maybe not.

But either way, we need to be ready for whatever answer we get, even if we don't like it.

I love science. I think science will show us many more wonders of the universe we live in. We certainly live in a most exciting time for scientific discovery, and why I love incorporating science in my novels where I can.

But who really knows what will happen. That's the great thing about science. It really shows us that the universe is such an amazing place, and the mystery goes very deep.

[Mehreen]

Aiden wrote: "Bernard makes a good point. You can't adopt a scientific approach unless you are ready to accept god or gods may or may not exist, and be open to either outcome, otherwise your experiment is trying..."

Not to mention the paradox. That the same God the creator is also the one responsible for our death. Assuming of course that there is a God.

[Aiden]

Mehreen wrote: "Not to mention the paradox. That the same God the creator is also the one responsible for our death. Assuming of course that there is a monotheistic God."

I don't think you can presume a monotheistic god if you adopt a scientific approach. Such gods didn't exist 3,000-6,000 years ago, and about 50-000-100,000 years ago humanity had no such concept of any kind of god or higher being, because we weren't evolved enough to think that way. Gods are a relatively new feature in the history of the universe.

[Mehreen]

Aiden wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "Not to mention the paradox. That the same God the creator is also the one responsible for our death. Assuming of course that there is a monotheistic God."

I don't think you can pre..."

My question is futuristic. And it alludes to a monotheistic God.

[Nik]

I don't think science seeks this as a direction of proving/disproving god's existence. For me Darwin's theory and discovered remnants of neanderthals and other cuties sufficiently undermine a religious theory of Devine creation.
On the other hand, religion is based on faith and don't require proof, so scientific approach doesn't interest believers that much
On the third hand, the God hasn't communicated with us , mortals, for a long time. Commandments are nice, but maybe we can benefit from fresher instructions -:)

[Bernard]

The major problem in linking maths with the idea of God is in the definition itself one will give to the word 'god'. For example, let's say that God is something unexplainable, beyond anything we can imagine. The challenge: prove the unexplainable. The closest we could come up with would be a probabilistic model with a very large uncertainty zone, each definition having it's own distinctive zone.

That was the purpose of the second question I asked above: what god are we talking about?

[Mehreen]

Bernard wrote: "The major problem in linking maths with the idea of God is in the definition itself one will give to the word 'god'. For example, let's say that God is something unexplainable, beyond anything we c..."

Monotheistic God. And it is a hypothetical question. There wouldn't be any straight answers, I know.

[GR]

Aiden wrote: "Bernard makes a good point. You can't adopt a scientific approach unless you are ready to accept god or gods may or may not exist, and be open to either outcome, otherwise your experiment is trying..."

If man can prove God's existence, they would prove Its existence beyond our comprehension. And like you said, Aiden, it would open up a whole new realm of new comprehensions that we as our present man's existence would not understand. More question needing answers.

Try going back to square One. Maybe there's the answer.

[Ian]

Just to clarify, you cannot derive anything from mathematics that was not inherent in it in the first place. This was clearly stated by Aristotle about 2,400 BC, and seemingly overlooked by just about everybody ever since. You can only derive from a premise, and the truthfulness of the output depends on the truthfulness of all the premises used

I do not believe you can prove the existence of God because it depends on an "if and only if" statement that if you do something you will see a specific output. By definition, you cannot make God comply. I am afraid this is down to individual belief.

[Mehreen]

Ian wrote: "Just to clarify, you cannot derive anything from mathematics that was not inherent in it in the first place. This was clearly stated by Aristotle about 2,400 BC, and seemingly overlooked by just ab..."

Thanks Ian, it is interesting that Ramanujan thought he derived knowledge of mathematics intuitively that helped many scientists. At Cambridge he faced challenge at first because he couldn't prove anything but later most of his mathematical claims have been proven correct. He was deeply religious and maintained that he derived this knowledge from divinity. He said, "an equation to me has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God."

[Ian]

Contrary to what some people believe, an equation can also be ambiguous. An equation is always a statement, and can be expressed in words, although the sentence can get pretty tedious with some of them. But take A = 2B. That could mean a pair of B is called an A, like a pack of socks, OR you might say A is worth two of B, e.g. a sestertius was worth two dupondius in the early imperial period.

[Mehreen]

Ian wrote: "Contrary to what some people believe, an equation can also be ambiguous. An equation is always a statement, and can be expressed in words, although the sentence can get pretty tedious with some of ..."

Yes. Ramanujan's theories were all mostly correct. And he thought God had put those ideas in his head as they were all derived intuitively. This process of thinking really impresses me but I also know that it won't work for everyone.

[Bernard]

Ian wrote: "Just to clarify, you cannot derive anything from mathematics that was not inherent in it in the first place. This was clearly stated by Aristotle about 2,400 BC, and seemingly overlooked by just ab..."

I agree with you up to a certain point. Aristotle's approach was one of classic or traditional mathematical certainties (1+1 =2). That's why a probabilistic approach would be preferable in trying to measure the chances of God actually existing. It's the one Drake used when he proposed an equation to help the discussion related to the existence of intelligent and communicative life beyond Earth. Drake_equation

The problem would now essentially consist in deciding upon the parameters to include in such an equation. Subjective selection of the parameters would obviously entail controversial discussions. Each one would have to relate to a measurable element and not hypotheses, theories or beliefs. The provenance and validity of these elements would also cause serious debates. However, this approach would allow for a reconciliation between certainty as proposed by Aristotle and uncertainty, which would reflect the basic dilemma of the existence or not of God.

Depending on how one defines God, we would notice a different set of parameters, some shared by each definition. The results would obviously vary from one definition to another without resolving either the fundamental issue of his existence of God or the validity of the approach!

As you can see, I'm not challenging Mehreen's idea of a monotheistic nor the general understanding of the concept of mathematics, but simply offering an approach or area where the issue could be examined, nevertheless, being aware that the chances of answering the question once and for all are slim.

[Mehreen]

Bernard wrote: "Ian wrote: "Just to clarify, you cannot derive anything from mathematics that was not inherent in it in the first place. This was clearly stated by Aristotle about 2,400 BC, and seemingly overlooke..."

Yes of course that's why it is the "lounge". No body is expecting any answers.

[GR]

Bravo, Mehreen. You said it in a nutshell!