NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally, I know the overall flaw with this type of arguement (the "astronomical probability arguement of things happening by chance, therefore there must be supernatual beings" arguement). But my explanations of the flaw seem to go over the head of anyone not majoring in math. Maybe its just the way I explain it... So anyway, I'd like to see you guys poke holes into this "Irrefutable Proof of God" arguement:

1+1=2 always,
but 2 is 1 out of an infinite amout of numbers.
Thus the probability of 1+1 always equaling 2 is 1 out of a number that approaches infinity,
and thus the probability approaches zero.
With a zero probability of it happening by chance, there must be intelligent design controlling it. -QED


And yes, there are arguements against this proof that do not require the postulation of another force, and do not require explaining that mathematics is invented by us to work a certain way. But in general I'd like to see any holes that can be contributed to the discussion.

despite the fact that this argument makes no sense whatsoever...

say 1+1 has a 1/infinity chance of equaling a number

there are an infinite amount of numbers

therefore the probability that 1+1 equals a number is 1

but I thought 1 + 1 = 3 :(

Anyway, the set sum two of the equation one plus one is not one out an ifinate amount of numbers. It is a numerical value deemed to be the correct product a set of certain variables. If those variables are both defined in real terms, then the solution is a single numbered set also defined in real terms. The result of this a single numbered set (metnioned above) since the set only has a single term, the liklihood of this term occuring is 1 over 1, in other words, one hundred percent. Instead of moving to exponentially smaller and smaller numbers with the infinate set, the number only has one value - 100%. Because of this, we can assume that nothing has a zero percent chance of happening by accident but instead has a one hundred percent chance of happening by accident.

Meh, refer to The Simpsons. If you freeze frame on the right episode, Homer has the mathematical reasons for God being real. lol

I always though it had something to do with peano postulates.

wasnt this drivel already spammed in the forum in a different thread?

wasnt this drivel already spammed in the forum in a different thread?

I did it a while ago as a parody because I assumed that its holes would be obvious to everyone. INstead something about tacos became the conversation, and I don't think anyone really expected me to be spoofing, so... here's the true meaning of what I wanted.

Here's a nice-sized hole:

By the logic that 1 + 1 = 2 is infinitely improbable (and thus having an approximate probability of zero), you must also concur that 1 + 1 /= 2 is also infinitely improbable, since if you pick any other arbitrary number for 1 + 1 to equal, the probability for that happening immediately drops to zero.

Therefore it is infinitely improbable that 1 + 1 = any number, or rather, if we pick any arbitrary number for 1 + 1 to equal, it is 100% probable that it is equal to something else.

However, since we know that 1 + 1 does in fact equal 2, yet has by your logic an effectively zero probability of equaling 2, the premise that there is a zero probability of 1 + 1 = 2 must therefore be false, and the entire implication must be voided, quod erat demonstrandum.

but I thought 1 + 1 = 3 :(

Anyway, the set sum two of the equation one plus one is not one out an ifinate amount of numbers. It is a numerical value deemed to be the correct product a set of certain variables. If those variables are both defined in real terms, then the solution is a single numbered set also defined in real terms. The result of this a single numbered set (metnioned above) since the set only has a single term, the liklihood of this term occuring is 1 over 1, in other words, one hundred percent. Instead of moving to exponentially smaller and smaller numbers with the infinate set, the number only has one value - 100%. Because of this, we can assume that nothing has a zero percent chance of happening by accident but instead has a one hundred percent chance of happening by accident.

I like this answer, but how can I explain this to someone who isn't a math major?

Actually, I thought the mathematical proof of that was something like

e (to the) i (power) = 1

Not sure that's the equation, but i think it was an irrational number to an imaginary power equaling 1 that proved God's existence.

Here's a nice-sized hole:

By the logic that 1 + 1 = 2 is infinitely improbable (and thus having an approximate probability of zero), you must also concur that 1 + 1 /= 2 is also infinitely improbable, since if you pick any other arbitrary number for 1 + 1 to equal, the probability for that happening immediately drops to zero.

Therefore it is infinitely improbable that 1 + 1 = any number, or rather, if we pick any arbitrary number for 1 + 1 to equal, it is 100% probable that it is equal to something else.

However, since we know that 1 + 1 does in fact equal 2, yet has by your logic an effectively zero probability of equaling 2, the premise that there is a zero probability of 1 + 1 = 2 must therefore be false, and the entire implication must be voided, quod erat demonstrandum.

Very original response. This pretty much treads on the answer I would have given while avoiding most of the combinatrics mumbo-jumbo.

Actually, I thought the mathematical proof of that was something like

e (to the) i (power) = 1

Not sure that's the equation, but i think it was an irrational number to an imaginary power equaling 1 that proved God's existence.

I think what you may be referring to is that e^(i*pi) = -1
While many agree the identity is beautiful, its about as much a proof of god as how pretty mountain landscapes look.

Eh, this isn't a good way to argue the for or against God. The easiest (and best) way to argue the existance of God is to accept that we, as humans, exist. Therefore, God, or at least a higher form of being, must exist.

We don't exist, we just think we do.

Personally, I know the overall flaw with this type of arguement (the "astronomical probability arguement of things happening by chance, therefore there must be supernatual beings" arguement). But my explanations of the flaw seem to go over the head of anyone not majoring in math. Maybe its just the way I explain it... So anyway, I'd like to see you guys poke holes into this "Irrefutable Proof of God" arguement:

1+1=2 always,
but 2 is 1 out of an infinite amout of numbers.
Thus the probability of 1+1 always equaling 2 is 1 out of a number that approaches infinity,
and thus the probability approaches zero.
With a zero probability of it happening by chance, there must be intelligent design controlling it. -QED


And yes, there are arguements against this proof that do not require the postulation of another force, and do not require explaining that mathematics is invented by us to work a certain way. But in general I'd like to see any holes that can be contributed to the discussion.

Well, what you are referring to when you say it "approaches zero" is what they call limits in Calculus.

However, if you do know that any number over infinity approaches zero (the limity of 1/x as x approaches infinity=0), you must also know that it never, ever does (look at the 1/x funtion on an x/y plot).

Moreover, the probability you speak of does not mean anything. What you actually are figuring is chosing the correct number 2 out of an infinite number of numbers, in which, yes, the chances are infintismally (is that a word? :-)) small. But the way we compute it is predetermined (I know, I know)

The integral of the function 1/x from 1 to x will yield the chance of getting 1 number out of x tries as x increases from 1 to infinity. We restrict the bounds from 1 to infinity because anything less than 1 wouldn't be a full guess.

When you take the integral of 1/x, the answer is ln x. As stated in some postulate somewhere (I don't remember where) the integration of 1/x from 1 to infinity is 1.

Therefore, the probability of getting the right answer in an infinite amount of guesses is 100%.

Which means sooner or later somebody would have gotten it right.

Sure sounds intelligent, but is it true? You be the judge.

but I thought 1 + 1 = 3 :(
I like this answer, but how can I explain this to someone who isn't a math major?

Not a math major (in fact very bad at math), but that was my first thought on reading the OP!
Another variation might be: 1+1=10.
And the good old 1=0 proof "works" as well.

Meh, refer to The Simpsons. If you freeze frame on the right episode, Homer has the mathematical reasons for God being real. lol
Actually, Homer proved that he didn't exist-Flanders was forced to track down the copies and destroy them. Homer was later converted temporarily by Flanders because the story of Christ is stoney. But then homer campaigned against the petition that Flanders had him sign at the end of it, but spaced on the day.


Simpsons rule.

Well, what you are referring to when you say it "approaches zero" is what they call limits in Calculus.

However, if you do know that any number over infinity approaches zero (the limity of 1/x as x approaches infinity=0), you must also know that it never, ever does (look at the 1/x funtion on an x/y plot).

Moreover, the probability you speak of does not mean anything. What you actually are figuring is chosing the correct number 2 out of an infinite number of numbers, in which, yes, the chances are infintismally (is that a word? :-)) small. But the way we compute it is predetermined (I know, I know)

The integral of the function 1/x from 1 to x will yield the chance of getting 1 number out of x tries as x increases from 1 to infinity. We restrict the bounds from 1 to infinity because anything less than 1 wouldn't be a full guess.

When you take the integral of 1/x, the answer is ln x. As stated in some postulate somewhere (I don't remember where) the integration of 1/x from 1 to infinity is 1.

Therefore, the probability of getting the right answer in an infinite amount of guesses is 100%.

Which means sooner or later somebody would have gotten it right.

Sure sounds intelligent, but is it true? You be the judge.

The only disagreement I have is that the integral of 1/x from 1 to infinity is actually infinity.

My god (no pun intended). Have we all forgot the easiest, simple, and most obvious solution?

If I take 1 apple, and then I take another apple.... how many apples do I have? 2 apples! And if I throw away 1 apple, how many apples are left? 1 apple! :fluffle:

There is no "probability" or "possibility" you could have any other number. Its just the way it is, because that is how we as a human race chose to label those numbers and situations.

Yay for 1st grade!

The only disagreement I have is that the integral of 1/x from 1 to infinity is actually infinity.

The definite integral of 1/x from 1 to infinity is equal to 1, not infinity. :-)

As far as the exact postulate/proof, I cannot put my finger on it. I should dig out my old college Calc book, but yeah...

My god (no pun intended). Have we all forgot the easiest, simple, and most obvious solution?

If I take 1 apple, and then I take another apple.... how many apples do I have? 2 apples! And if I throw away 1 apple, how many apples are left? 1 apple! :fluffle:

There is no "probability" or "possibility" you could have any other number. Its just the way it is, because that is how we as a human race chose to label those numbers and situations.

Yay for 1st grade!


that's what i was gonna say. if you put two apples together, they don't spontaneously generate another apple. 1+1=2. cuz we call the apples when they are together "2." we could call it 3. and then 1+1=3. we just named the damn number "2". if we WANTED to, we could count like...0, 1, 3, 9, 4, 17, 82, 61... and then 1+1=3.

I want the life i wasted looking at this topic back, you own me.... *storms out in hope of... anything*

after reading all the math brain microwave stuff i am REALLY going to have to change my major (computer science at uah requires a math minor)

lets disprove god without math


my god can kick your god's ass. bam.

"intelligent design"? yeah, human beings...hello, mathematics aren't natural, they're a human made system...math doesn't naturally exist. you're taking math out of context, and therefore the "proof" is asinine. you take an apple, throw another apple onto it, and you've got an apple and an apple, from the objective perspective...not "2" apples...god would ask you, wtf?

but then again, i'm a pantheist...

despite the fact that this argument makes no sense whatsoever...

say 1+1 has a 1/infinity chance of equaling a number

there are an infinite amount of numbers

therefore the probability that 1+1 equals a number is 1
What are numbers?

or, since i'm a budding layman, i'll talk within my own terms...

dude. you're saying that because it's "unlikely" (but not impossible; the probability APPROACHES zero...) we could accurately GUESS (<--pssst, key word here...you ignore the fact that numbers are systematic...and in doing so you would question our ability to decide that 1+1 yields one answer...if math isn't a system, it's nothing) the right answer, then that means god is holding our hands, walking us through the maze of numbers we designed ourselves. this is the equivalent of saying "dude, like, brains are complicated. you couldn't think one up! there has to be a god."

How does math prove God exists? :confused:

yay, finally, aside from the facts that
1. math was made up by humans
2. math is a system and equations are derived systematically, not by chance

it doesn't prove there is a god, it only (very nebulously) SUGGESTS that there is an unidentified force assisting us in the utility of our own system. which is asinine.

i've never found a "proof" for god that wasn't intellectually offensive and academically repulsive.

yay, finally, aside from the facts that
1. math was made up by humans
2. math is a system and equations are derived systematically, not by chance

it doesn't prove there is a god, it only (very nebulously) SUGGESTS that there is an unidentified force assisting us in the utility of our own system. which is asinine.

i've never found a "proof" for god that wasn't intellectually offensive and academically repulsive.

I didn't start this one...I swear

The definite integral of 1/x from 1 to infinity is equal to 1, not infinity. :-)

As far as the exact postulate/proof, I cannot put my finger on it. I should dig out my old college Calc book, but yeah...

It's not a postulate, it's just a simple Riemann sum evaluation using limits... I think. It's been a couple months of beer since I last had to go to a calculus lecture.

It's not a postulate, it's just a simple Riemann sum evaluation using limits... I think. It's been a couple months of beer since I last had to go to a calculus lecture.

Ah, that's probably it. I remember a Riemann sum coming in somewhere into the equation.

Does my explanation make any sense to you? It sure doesn't to me... :-D

Eh, this isn't a good way to argue the for or against God. The easiest (and best) way to argue the existance of God is to accept that we, as humans, exist. Therefore, God, or at least a higher form of being, must exist.

where do you find the logic to make this statement? And don't we humans define what "existence" is because we're the only sentient being on earth? Using your logic, since we're sentient (because we accept we exist) then god must be sentient as well. Therefor, god is a human and humans are god.

oh, and 1 = .999~
let's see if that starts an argument :rolleyes:

I'm sorry if i'm not a math major, but i fail to see what in hell this has to do with God.

I'm sorry if i'm not a math major, but i fail to see what in hell this has to do with God.
It has little to do with God and more to do with the logic in the arguement (or the abuse thereof)

*walks in carrying a long stick*

Poke, Poke, Poke!

Pretty holes!

*Leaves*

I perfer this one. You deal with math... I'll deal with words

* God, by definition, is perfect
* Something that exists is more perfect than something that does not exist, again by definition.
*God, by definition, exists.

It has holes, but its fun

I perfer this one. You deal with math... I'll deal with words

* God, by definition, is perfect
* Something that exists is more perfect than something that does not exist, again by definition.
*God, by definition, exists.

It has holes, but its fun

ergo, god only exists if you accept that deffinition of god

Argh, I really should know this... but what do you get if you integrate 1/x? Not a definite integral, but just the basic thing... If it weren't Christmas, I would know this (I need to do it in my mock Leaving Cert in a month's time...)... I couldn't even remember how to do nPr and nCr... Me brain has melted!

Numbers, in this case 1, do not exist, addition does not exist, mathematics as a whole does not exist. What we call mathematics is our attempt to bring order to our world, it is an observation and is entirely subjective. To me, 1 could be what you would think is 100, none of them have a fixed value so it is all subjective. I could say 2+2=1 and 1+1=4, it is just that they have commonly accepted values, but what is accepted by the group is not always accepted by the individual. Thus the problem of 1+1=2 being irrefutable proof that God exists is entirely false.

People saying 1=0.9999~ are also correct, because 1 can equal whatever the hell I want it to. You can say a single object grouped with another single object will create a group of that object and another object, but that is no miracle of God.

As for the definition, that's more like it, but it doesn't prove what God exists, only that atheists are wrong. By that definition the King of All Cosmos is the supreme ruler of the universe. (If anyone can tell me what that was a reference too, I'll give you a cookie).

1+1=2 always,
but 2 is 1 out of an infinite amout of numbers.
Thus the probability of 1+1 always equaling 2 is 1 out of a number that approaches infinity,
and thus the probability approaches zero.
With a zero probability of it happening by chance, there must be intelligent design controlling it. -QED


I can't believe that no one saw the most obvious problem with this. Statistics and probability are based of random numbers. It is accurate to say that any random number added to itself has an infinately small chance of being any given number. In fact the sum is really unneeded in this "proof". Since we can assign variables let

Y=X+X, or in other words Y=2X.

Now the assumption we began with is

Y=2

Since we know what X is we also know Y.

2=2.

In fact 2 will always equal 2.

On another note I would argue that people did not actually invent math. We noticed simple addition and created a system that explanes it. Everything else, including substraction, multiplication, and division are all based off of the truth of addition. Math does not seem to be by design, but rather it just is.

1+1=2 always

When does 10+3=1?

(it is very common and something you see frequently)

When does 10+3=1?

(it is very common and something you see frequently)

Spoiler: Calendar year.

I perfer this one. You deal with math... I'll deal with words

* God, by definition, is perfect
* Something that exists is more perfect than something that does not exist, again by definition.
*God, by definition, exists.

It has holes, but its fun

I disagree with your second assumption.

Is a devil that exists better than a devil that doesn't?

Argh, I really should know this... but what do you get if you integrate 1/x? Not a definite integral, but just the basic thing... If it weren't Christmas, I would know this (I need to do it in my mock Leaving Cert in a month's time...)... I couldn't even remember how to do nPr and nCr... Me brain has melted!

The integral of 1/x is ln(x) + C.

I can't believe that no one saw the most obvious problem with this. Statistics and probability are based of random numbers.
*snip*

O...M...G... thats it! Thats the exact reason I was hoping someone would see.

Yeah, 2 is one number out of an infinite amount of numbers, but because we've already defined it that way, no such "odds" come into play.

You get 3.141592 cookies!

When does 10+3=1?

(it is very common and something you see frequently)

In modulo arithmetic...

O...M...G... thats it! Thats the exact reason I was hoping someone would see.

Yeah, 2 is one number out of an infinite amount of numbers, but because we've already defined it that way, no such "odds" come into play.

You get 3.141592 cookies!

I dunno how nice pi cookies would be....

In modulo arithmetic...

HAHAHAHA

People saying 1=0.9999~ are also correct, because 1 can equal whatever the hell I want it to. You can say a single object grouped with another single object will create a group of that object and another object, but that is no miracle of God.


never said it was... and that wasn't my attempt at all since I'm agnostic. I've seen people argue over 1= .999~ almost as much as people argue over the existence of god. :rolleyes:

Meh, refer to The Simpsons. If you freeze frame on the right episode, Homer has the mathematical reasons for God being real. lol

Do you mean the Episode where Homer finds out he had a Crayon in his brain from whe he was a Kid. If so, the the proof Homer presents Flander is that God does not exist and so there is no need to go to church. :D

When does 10+3=1?

(it is very common and something you see frequently)

Time: 10:00 plus 3 hours equals 1:00 (months work too)

Do you mean the Episode where Homer finds out he had a Crayon in his brain from whe he was a Kid. If so, the the proof Homer presents Flander is that God does not exist and so there is no need to go to church. :D

I love the original line he says:
Hey Flanders, no need to go to church today.
Why's that Homer?
While I was doing my taxes I accidently proved that God doesn't exist.
What!? Let me look that. Wait a sec... no. Well what about- no. Well how about- oh no. Its air-tight. Well, can't let anyone see this now! *Burns paper*
*Camera turns to Homer putting a copy on each person's windshield*

never said it was... and that wasn't my attempt at all since I'm agnostic. I've seen people argue over 1= .999~ almost as much as people argue over the existence of god. :rolleyes:
Sorry I was just adding that part at the end to further prove that math was not concrete, sorry if it seemed you had posed another God argument.

The integral of 1/x is ln(x) + C.

What do you get when you differentiate 1/x then? I thought that was ln(x)... Argh, I really needs to do some study...

I disagree with your second assumption.

Is a devil that exists better than a devil that doesn't?

What's more, God is assumed to be perfect, and existence is assumed to be more perfect than nonexistence. Neither "given" is truly independent of assumption.

What do you get when you differentiate 1/x then? I thought that was ln(x)... Argh, I really needs to do some study...

you get -1/(x^2) when you differentiate 1/x.

Time: 10:00 plus 3 hours equals 1:00 (months work too)

You can even simplify it more by just saying "10+3=1 in mod(12)" it doesn't matter whether it's on a clock or a calender.

This does not prove the existence of G-d, but rather the existence of Truth. Want to deify truth? OK, do so, but extending that to personify it as G-d does not follow by any stretch of the definitions of logic or proof.

What's more, God is assumed to be perfect, and existence is assumed to be more perfect than nonexistence. Neither "given" is truly independent of assumption.

For a more conprehensive logical proof to the existence of God (being the Christian god), see the work of Descartes.

As with all logic, however, you have to agree on some basic definitions, like God is perfect, existence is a quality, etc.

Oh, and 10 mo + 3 mo = 1 yr 1 mo, 10:00 hr:min + 3:00 hr:min = 13:00 hr:min.

Sorry, but leaving off the next highest "digit" proves nothing. Trying to look clever? Esse Quam Videri!

Oh, and 10 mo + 3 mo = 1 yr 1 mo, 10:00 hr:min + 3:00 hr:min = 13:00 hr:min.

Sorry, but leaving off the next highest "digit" proves nothing. Trying to look clever? Esse Quam Videri!

On a twelve hour clock you'll never see 13 O'clock, so while 10 hours plus 3 hours equals 13 hours, 10 O'clock plus 3 hours equals 1 O'clock. The same basic reasoning can be applied to the matter of months and years, or you can just understand it as modular and be done with it.

For a more conprehensive logical proof to the existence of God (being the Christian god), see the work of Descartes.

As with all logic, however, you have to agree on some basic definitions, like God is perfect, existence is a quality, etc.

I've seen Descartes' proofs before, and when you boil them down you are left each time with "Assuming God exists, then God exists" which is not very meaningful. That is of course not mentioning the fact that Descartes proves a bunch of different things and calls them all God even though there is no reason to believe that any of them are components of an all powerful being, that any two of them are related in any way, or that even if they are all aspects of a single being, that that being bears any resemblance to our ideas about God in any capacity other than those demonstrated by Descartes' proofs.

Personally, I know the overall flaw with this type of arguement (the "astronomical probability arguement of things happening by chance, therefore there must be supernatual beings" arguement). But my explanations of the flaw seem to go over the head of anyone not majoring in math. Maybe its just the way I explain it... So anyway, I'd like to see you guys poke holes into this "Irrefutable Proof of God" arguement:

1+1=2 always,
but 2 is 1 out of an infinite amout of numbers.
Thus the probability of 1+1 always equaling 2 is 1 out of a number that approaches infinity,
and thus the probability approaches zero.
With a zero probability of it happening by chance, there must be intelligent design controlling it. -QED


And yes, there are arguements against this proof that do not require the postulation of another force, and do not require explaining that mathematics is invented by us to work a certain way. But in general I'd like to see any holes that can be contributed to the discussion.


Of course, your postulation is based on the concept that mathematics were a form of divine truth passed down to man rather than a descriptive mechanism used by us. 1+1=2 is so because we have defined it to be so. Of course, arithmetic is not universally true in that 1kilo of enriched uranium + 1 kilo of enriched uranium when squished together does not result 2 kilos of enriched uranium, but rather will result in a gawdawful mess of the neighbourhood.

Now, given that mankind has assembled it's rules for the various branches of mathematics without any prrof of divine inspiration, then mankind itself is the "intelligent design" that you imply.

This either makes us God, or we could scrap the concept that we are neccessarily intelligent. Most days, I'd lean towards the latter.....

Of course, your postulation is based on the concept that mathematics were a form of divine truth passed down to man rather than a descriptive mechanism used by us. 1+1=2 is so because we have defined it to be so. Of course, arithmetic is not universally true in that 1kilo of enriched uranium + 1 kilo of enriched uranium when squished together does not result 2 kilos of enriched uranium, but rather will result in a gawdawful mess of the neighbourhood.

Now, given that mankind has assembled it's rules for the various branches of mathematics without any prrof of divine inspiration, then mankind itself is the "intelligent design" that you imply.

This either makes us God, or we could scrap the concept that we are neccessarily intelligent. Most days, I'd lean towards the latter.....

Yay!

The imposition of order onto a chaotic universe by the cataloging function of the human brain is the intelligent design of the universe. Language is the key and sentences the representitives of the existential universe. The intelligent design percieved in the nature of the universe is the result of the method of interaction between the mind and the universe, not any aspect of the universe itself.

What do you get when you differentiate 1/x then? I thought that was ln(x)... Argh, I really needs to do some study...

if you differentiate 1/x you get -1/x^2

you get -1/(x^2) when you differentiate 1/x.
D'oh! Of course. Thank you. Me fail maths now...

Something that exists is more perfect than something that does not exist, again by definition. (Pious Flea)

I think reality tv disproves THAT theory. ;)

It seems to me that everything that actually exists is, by "definition", IMperfect. Nothingness is the most perfect thing I can imagine of, because it has no flaws. (Except for the fact that it, well, doesn't exist.)

On a twelve hour clock you'll never see 13 O'clock, so while 10 hours plus 3 hours equals 13 hours, 10 O'clock plus 3 hours equals 1 O'clock. The same basic reasoning can be applied to the matter of months and years, or you can just understand it as modular and be done with it.

10 a.m. + 3 hours = 1 p.m.