Proof of God 2: Sleeping Through Math Class

Today we’re going to dust off the cobwebs of our minds and try to remember way back to our various math classes. Remember how the cover of the book always looked like the jacket for some Atari racing game or 1980’s pop album cover? Remember that thing the teacher had which held chalk and allowed him to draw perfect circles on the board? Remember that blond girl from Alabama who sat behind you and managed to learn nothing every day even though the option of being distracted by an i-phone was still years away? Those were good times. Oh, and there was something about numbers. Try to remember some of that, because today it will help.math board copy

Roach Clowns all the time be trying to set the bar for acceptable proofs for God’s existence so high that NOTHING could ever be acceptable as evidence in favor of the Biblical world view. One of the things they demand is “100% certain mathematical proofs”. Conversations on social media tend to sound like this:

Roach Clown: If you want me to believe God exists you’ll have to show me evidence that is 100% mathematically certain!

You: You want me to prove God exists with math? You know God isn’t an equation, right?

Roach Clown: I knew it! You can’t prove God exists! WINNING!

You: No, really. Let’s talk about what you think the word “God” means. Because it seems like you have no idea.

Last time I showed how demanding 100% certainty is an unreachable goal, because the skeptic can choose to reject ANYTHING as certain, even his own existence. If you can’t convince a person that he exists, there’s no point trying to talk him into anything else. After all, if he’s not sure he’s there, who are you even talking to?

Demanding 100% mathematical certainty merely shows how the Roach Clown doesn’t understand math. Math is not based on deductive or inductive reasoning where in evidence is shown to strongly support a conclusion. Math is based on something much simpler. We can be absolutely sure that 2 + 2 = 4, not because of science, nor because of smart people doing smart things in smart books or on smart TV shows (if such a thing exists) but merely because of the definition of the terms.

The Law of Non-contradiction says that anything (A) is itself (A) and thus, for anything A = A. If you rename A, so that it has a nametag which says, “Hello, my name is Perfecto Sanchez“, this does not change the fact that A = A, because when A = Perfecto Sanchez, what you are saying is Perfecto Sanchez = Perfecto Sanchez, which is really just another way of saying A = A. There’s no trick here. It really is that easy.

When we say 2 + 2 = 4, we are saying A (4) = A (also 4). Only, on one side, we have written the sum of 4 as 2 + 2. To put it another way, when I say a shape with three sides is a triangle, I am not saying a shape with three sides can become a triangle when the appropriate tools and techniques are applied by a master craftsman. I simply mean that a shape with three sides (A triangle) = a Shape with three sides (A triangle). This is true merely as a matter of definition. So, as long as you are sane and sober enough to accept the law of non-contradiction, you can see that math is not scientific evidence based on observation, intelligence, or some kind of skill, but merely calling things what they are. Metaphysically, 2+2=4 is equivalent to [a shape with three sides]=[a triangle].

Anything is itself. Of that we can be 100% certain.

When you are asking for mathematical proofs for the existence of God, what you are saying is, by definition, God is someone that exists, and thus, God=real? Can God’s existence be proven with 100% mathematical certainty? Yes. Yes it can. Saint Anselm of Canterbury did that like a thousand years ago. You’re welcome. So, I guess I’ll see you in church. If that girl from Alabama is there, don’t sit near her. She’ll just be playing Candy Crush on her i-phone.

Join me next time as we get Ontological, and thanks for letting me be your Rent-A-Friend.

Advertisements

About rentafriend2000
Rocking my 40's with a heart full of love and muffins, science and technology. Jesus loves me and wants me to totally rock! And I am here to help.

5 Responses to Proof of God 2: Sleeping Through Math Class

  1. Can you prove anything in nature to 100% certainty? Who demands this certainty? I think you’re just making this stuff up. Thanks for asking!

    • All I’m going to say in response here is that you ask me if I can prove anything in nature with 100% certainty, and then ask me who demands this certainty.
      I can’t make up stuff this funny. If I could, I’d have more readers.
      And had you read my series, Evolution 101 (also found on https://creationsoapbox.wordpress.com/) you could have saved yourself the time of trying to defend such a bankrupt pile of psudoscience. It’s not too late. Surf on over there and see the big secrets we “anti-evolution creationists” have been keeping in plain sight via books, videos, and web sites for forty years. I think you’ll find it quite enlightening. I’m not making that up.
      Thanks for asking, too. Also.
      The EVOLUTION 101 series starts here: https://creationsoapbox.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/evolution-101-part-1-definition-fail/

      • Thanks but no thanks. I’ve followed anti-evolution pseudo-science for practically forty years myself and can only wish that the books, websites, and videos were indeed secret. Oh well!

        I’m reving up my Evolution In Only Sixty Posts again which you might enjoy. I write about the nature of reality in Part 1 and then talk about facts, proof, and theory. Later on I move to mathematics and evoluiton. Nothing in nature can be proved with certainly but science gives us a tool to compare levels of certainty. Remember – you might just be a brain in a vat! I bet you a quarter that you can’t prove that you’re not!

        Cheers, and…er, good luck. Kind of.

      • Thanks for your comments and the invitation to your series. If time permits I’d be happy to check it out. But save me some research and tell me when I can expect you to define what evolution is. You seemed reluctant to accept mine, and having seen the EVO 101 kids (Which my series replies to) fail over and over to reach a single definition that clearly distinguishes it, I wonder what you might do to improve on their methods. I have a textbook which is called “Evolution: Change over time.” I’m sure you can see why I reject this as sufficient. What DOESN’T change over time? Obviously only certain kinds of change are evolutionary, in the sense that they cause the kind of change which we mean when we say Evolution- the change from worm to fish to lizard to rodent to primate to us. Most kinds of change don’t help this story along at all.
        Funny side note- as I was deconstructing the EVO 101 site, and finding they fail to define Evolution clearly, I was surfing the web, trying to find a better definition than the EVO 101 kids gave, I found the Association of High School Biology Teachers who stated adamantly that evolution was a FACT and must be presented as a FACT and not as a theory in dispute, dogma, dogma. I could not find a clear definition on their page of what they meant by the term, but they suggested looking over at the NCSE web site article “The Definition of Evolution” which said a bit about how many people don’t understand evolution and how many people mean different things about it. They also failed to state a clear definition for it, but they had a link for more information which lead me to the EVO 101 page I was already deconstructing. Thus my frustration.
        Anyhoo, just show me where you take a crack at it and I’ll be happy to take a look.
        thanks!

      • I’m happy as a clam for you to explore all you want when you get time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

A Bit of Orange

Biblical Apologetics made Friendly

Reluctantly Aging

One man’s futile struggle against inevitability

A Bit of Orange

Biblical Apologetics Made Friendly

RaF Ministries News

What's new at Rent-A-Friend Ministries

Bible Science Forum

Creation Evolution Cosmology

Superhero etc.

ALL THINGS SUPERHEROES

Creation Science 4 Kids

creation science worded for all of us

christian ammunition

He that dasheth in pieces is come up before thy face: keep the munition...fortify thy power mightily--NAHUM 2:1

Surprised by Logic

Logic for the ordinary Joe and Jane

WordPress.com

WordPress.com is the best place for your personal blog or business site.

Rent-A-Friend 2000's Biblical Thinking and Good Times!

Part of the Creation Soapbox Apologetics Ministry

%d bloggers like this: