A reason for existence of God
A reason for existence of God
What can be a better reason for the mathematical Logic to be in command of the whole universe but existence of a Loving God?
-
- Posts: 4369
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: A reason for existence of God
the square root of three
-Imp
-Imp
Re: A reason for existence of God
Why not the square root of 2? Or -1?
If mathematical logic is "in command" - and I am in fact inclined to agree with you - then it only entails that "God" is much cleverer than we are. He, she or it need not be in any sense "loving" or "divine" or possess any of the attributes traditionally assigned by human superstitious belief-systems.
Remember though, quoting Richard Feynman, everything we think we know in science is only an approximation. Science is a human creation. A fumbling in the darkness of our ignorance. People once thought Ptolemy had explained everything. Then Newton had a day in the sun. Then Einstein. But we know that Einstein didn't get everything right either. We just don't quite know yet what will be the next stage.
Parting thought: the proof that 1 + 1 = 2 rests upon axioms which have been devised by humans and thus are open to debate. They might be wrong, or at least inadequate. Like Newtonian mechanics, they could prove to be only an intermediate stage on the way to a new and better science of maths. Mathematics is a very "human" construction, and I would hesitate to deduce anything about the nature of "God" from maths alone.
If mathematical logic is "in command" - and I am in fact inclined to agree with you - then it only entails that "God" is much cleverer than we are. He, she or it need not be in any sense "loving" or "divine" or possess any of the attributes traditionally assigned by human superstitious belief-systems.
Remember though, quoting Richard Feynman, everything we think we know in science is only an approximation. Science is a human creation. A fumbling in the darkness of our ignorance. People once thought Ptolemy had explained everything. Then Newton had a day in the sun. Then Einstein. But we know that Einstein didn't get everything right either. We just don't quite know yet what will be the next stage.
Parting thought: the proof that 1 + 1 = 2 rests upon axioms which have been devised by humans and thus are open to debate. They might be wrong, or at least inadequate. Like Newtonian mechanics, they could prove to be only an intermediate stage on the way to a new and better science of maths. Mathematics is a very "human" construction, and I would hesitate to deduce anything about the nature of "God" from maths alone.