Proving God exists using Math

This longer video explains the Mandelbrot set in more detail:
www.youtube.co...
Explore the Mandelbrot set yourself:
math.hws.edu/e...
Join our discord community:
/ discord

[@crunkdaconqueror778]

If school taught me that math was related to God, I probably would’ve studied more math

[@CaffeinatedCaramel]

Right? God is just so awesome... God bless ♥

[@ruin8891]

How so? If you are a lazy piece of meat, you either wouldn’t

[@warrior4hire522]

Isn't everything related to God technically?

[@grantlester2985]

@@warrior4hire522Especially when God IS RELATIONAL, in his omnipotence

[@fabertaleixo]

SAME I’d at-least be more passionate for math

[@chewhammer2213]

math does not control the universe, it describes the universe

[@rhysbryant9010]

the laws of the universe eg second law of thermo ect ect most certainly controls the universe without it, we would be nothing there would be nothing, the laws of our existence are very much designed and complex

[@Cardinalium235]

@@rhysbryant9010 I had a stroke reading that, next time you yap, use a fucking comma or parenthesis.

[@SearchingThingsOfficial]

I just believe: Bible: Explains everything in general Science/Math: Explains everything in truth

[@mikeraphone7868]

​@@rhysbryant9010the study of thermodynamics is not the same a the physical phenomenon that controls the universe. The former is an observation, the latter is an occurrence. What @chewhammer2213 is saying is that the math we use that exists in the mind does not control the universe. The math that exists in the mind is a description of the universe and its tenancies. We can't change the math in our minds to change how the universe operates, thus the math in our minds is not the same as whatever controls the universe.

[@wenterinfaer1656]

Did the universe make up numbers or humans? How do you know the entire edifice of mathematics is not wrong?

[@Matt_JJz]

Mathematics is NOT just something in our mind, it exists even without humans. All humans did was figure out how to put it on paper. It also absolutely does not control the universe, as math just presents values and their interaction.

[@xCessivePresure]

What the hell do you mean? Have you ever stumbled the number 2, and I mean the number itself, not a number of things, in the forest?

[@Matt_JJz]

@@xCessivePresure Math exists all around us and is present in everything. The number 2 as it is written is the written presentation of 2. The same way as the word tree is the written presentation of tree.

[@dashsamuel8035]

I agree, humans just figured out a way to define what we see around us using a system, we created, the system is not natural but what it measures is. Like a Geiger counter measuring radiation, a Geiger counter is a thing humans invented that uses real materials and real math to work, radiation is just the natural thing it’s measuring. (Probably a bad example but I tried my best :) )

[@kione_1]

That is not true, math does not contain truth. Read about Gœdel’s theorems: math is just a language, a beautiful but incomplete language. If you think about it, what it proves are just tautologies.

[@chernovbilinski4012]

Mathematics is just mathematics lol, that’s why we call it a universal language

[@razcsi]

This video, explained in one sentence: "Man, these Mandelbrot sets are weird, but quite beautiful, so god probably exists"

[@yomamafat420]

what?? he didnt make any statements about beauty. he explained the imposibility of infinites in the real world, and all you understood was just that?? go study surreal numbers and come back here.

[@johnwickwithablackman5564]

You definitely were too dumb to understand what he just said the entire video and just rolled with whatever your brain can comprehend what he’s saying

[@bulb9970]

@@yomamafat420 bro you're called "yo mama fat", you clearly didn't study "surreal numbers" either lmao

[@bcmoore671]

@@bulb9970just because someone has a stupid name doesnt mean they are stupid :|

[@MOSS-Sss]

@@bulb9970 Ahh yes, Weird Username = You didn't study, This logic makes SUCH sense.

[@Win090949]

To me personally, the Mandelbrot set is not designed to be beautiful. It just exists, and *we* found it beautiful.

[@kasuo7039]

shoutout to johnny test for the idea that you can zoom out the universe far enough and see us or zoom in close enough and still see our dumbasses, like a mandelbrot. But what we see isnt actually "us" its something really similar to us like 1.1 is similar to 1.11 or like where the infinite possibilites can be seen. Maybe when you zoom in its like going forward and when you zoom out its like going backwards. Johnny test is crazy I swear, favorite show as a 72 year old yall should look it up.

[@Joyscp999]

i just see it has a infinite confusing repeating thing

[@togglinho]

i find it scary, that shape looks creepy

[@KarolusMaximus]

Mandelbrot, lol :D

[@adriand00]

Correct, because for me even thou we have great knowledge, we also are sensorial-limited. Think only the small fraction we have to perceive light

[@Oniongiri]

Math is a language to explain our universe with logical dependencies. It’s not only in the mind, humans just translated it into numbers and equations which we can understand

[@TheLastOutlaw289]

Exactly. Math is based on constants. Constants exist in nature. Like the properties of geometric shapes etc so it can’t be made up.

[@petarpetrovic8133]

It is a language but, not like speaking language. With mathematical language we discover things that are beyond our capacity and it goes into infinity. Many things are discovered through math so you can't say we invented certain stuff. It's just that we discovered there are certain patterns in nature. Patterns do not physically exist, same can be applied to God I guess. So if there is a true pattern of nature, there should also be truth behind our existance, we aren't just a plain coincidence.

[@grillpig3860]

I think what you wanted to say is: "Math is a language, that describes our universe by using logical dependencies." Logistics is the thing that warehouses and shipping services do. 🤓

[@Oniongiri]

@@petarpetrovic8133 but it could be a coincidence we exist. Our universe exists because the physical constants are what they are. That could prove that either there is a higher power that personally set that values. Or the multiverse exists and each universe has their own universal constants and the one we’re in just happen to be one of POSSIBLY multiple configurations that allow life to exist. And we don’t really have a way to prove either of them tbh

[@Oniongiri]

@@grillpig3860 my engrish not very good

[@alexsenpai5581]

bro thought he was cooking but the oven was off

[@hare4755]

😐

[@mehmetunal9731]

so true

[@MultiversalGoat]

bro thought he was cooking but he was baking and he didn't even own an oven

[@andidyouknow8208]

Ong

[@un_of_earth]

He was cooking schizophrenia

[@neztech.]

i like how this video boils down to the poster not understanding the concept of infinity and just proclaiming that it must be god

[@gigi-xl3pc]

Because god is math …. God is everything. You didn’t know ?

[@neztech.]

@@gigi-xl3pc Math has been made by humans to understand things, not the other way around. God cannot "be math", because math did not exist before his own creations. Something like the Mandelbrot set being infinite doesn't prove anything, because the whole set doesn't exist in reality. You can view slices of it, but you can never replicate the full image.

[@gigi-xl3pc]

@@neztech. math was created since the day he began to create. Thousands of years ago there were the Egyptians there were the Atlanteans, the anunaki. They don’t all go together but so much history and stories in the Bible that correlate with other stories, however there is so much history lost, and even found and written on tablets or artifacts or whatever the case is but math began from the very beginning. It’s not a recent thing. God wouldn’t be a thing without math and there’s so much proof. I’ll give you one. It took God seven days to create on the last day he rested, and you can correlate this to the seed of life which you can search it up, but its circles overlapped with other circles. God moved up down side to side, creating “that form”. From that form, you can see it in a lot of aspects in life . Like the embryonic system (making a baby) of a women having a baby or even cells dividing and other aspects in life. Math was already a thing so it would’ve been either we found it or didn’t and we would be super underdeveloped if we didn’t. God created first with sound, Sound is math . It’s okay to not know everything, even I don’t. you can choose to keep researching things you’re unsure of or even always having an open mind . If there were no lies in this world, we wouldn’t know the truth. Even I would like to keep learning

[@zelven6109]

​@@neztech.Let him be, these people never tried understanding basic arithmetics and what the application of infinity actually is.

[@jason3351]

@@gigi-xl3pc then what created god? hm? did he just spawn? if I make something with my hands did god make that?

[@PersonCuber]

Basic common sense says that if math has every combination, then the Mandelbrot set must exist no matter how math was created

[@sarthak-ti]

Idk, this whole video was so strange and clearly not well thought out. His example for math being above the universe was that it contains the universe? Like just because you can model it or explain its interactions doesn’t mean it’s contained. I say the word “universe”, that doesn’t suddenly mean English is supernatural

[@carsonpaullee]

Then that just leads to questions about pantheism or pandeism or panendeism

[@mistafizz5195]

@@sarthak-ti stop sharing your critical thinking abilities, supposed to be a secret

[@a_randomuser4]

Math doesn’t have every combination, the every combination are only there if someone arranged them. There aren’t every combination, it’s just a concept. Even if they’re were every combination, not counting numbers since they’re just symbols that don’t exist, it wouldn’t be infinite since infinity doesn’t exist as far as we know.

[@caseyk.479]

@@sarthak-ti English, and any other language are finite, math is infinite. Infinity is impossible to fully comprehend, due to the nature of infinity, and the finite nature of our minds. If infinity cannot exist in our minds, or the physical universe, how is it possible for the concept of infinity to exist in math (which we did not make up) without an infinite mind?

[@ezekielburgos7898]

We can’t see math, touch math, smell math, but can smoke math.

[@Vince_mik]

... nice

[@pranadsharma6668]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZmnZoiwrdqqj5Ysi=evzrgAQjA-qsyT-y

[@Soyja.]

Good pun

[@pikapower5723]

Bro fr

[@ProdBetelgeuse]

that shit would go craaaaazy in a rap song

[@FatherMartini]

The fallacies in this vid are way more infinite than math

[@namuyu7154]

Their Argument is so fallacious that it almost makes some other dimensions

[@asdfasdfasdf1218]

It makes perfect sense if they're simply saying math=god, math exists, therefore god exists. But it's a very watered-down definition of god, and it would not make sense if they try to go from that to any specific religion or to say anything on abortion, homosexuality, life after death, and all that.

[@lukesutton4135]

@FatherMartini It's a very weak opinion to state something without backing it. How about listing some?

[@That_OneGuy46]

@@lukesutton4135 I'll do him a favour and do it for him!!!!: Here's the contradiction, he first explains that math can not be detected by the 5 main senses, only by consciousness, THEN you say it has to exist outside of our universe because infinity doesn't fit inside the finite. If it is not physical, like you said only a minute ago, then it can fit in the physical bounds of the universe. Another contradiction!!!!! He says that there is an infinite combination of numbers, this means there is an infinite combination of functions, which will graph an infinite amount of shapes, so the Mandelbrot set, because it doesn't break any laws of math, is guaranteed to exist.

[@macias7125]

@@That_OneGuy46 You do realize that math is something infinite right? We can only observe it to a certain point to the point that we can’t even comprehend it anymore and yes infinite doesn’t equal finity that’s why the universe has no end is what he’s saying

[@sean71300]

oof wait till bro discovers about cardinality and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[@jumbeer5572]

And 1/137 in physics

[@teokeitaanranta658]

Gödel❤

[@lorenzobarbuto7704]

Math isn't a real product of manship, but it's the instrument humans use to describe the laws of nature and universe.

[@alieser7770]

Nope, pure math is done for its own sake

[@cozzy124]

math is a language we use to speak with God

[@XerTaaL]

​@@cozzy124damm bro 1 + 1 must mean "god" is blessing me with various gifts FRFR

[@OGmemegenerator]

@@cozzy124🤦‍♂️

[@Posic_]

@@cozzy124 God: 2+2? Human: 4. God: ∫ π/2 0 x⋅cos ^2 (x)⋅ln(sin(x))dx Human: 👁👄👁

[@chikitibomba2651]

This makes sense if you don't really understand math in a fundamental level, if you actually get to the source of the number system we use named "the real and complex numbers" you'll find math is based on axioms which are pretty much "things we declare as true because they're obvious to everyone but impossible to prove" such as the existence of 0, 1 being different than 0, and a few more; everything else is a logic consecuence of these axioms which are pretty much made up by human minds to understand the world; of course infinite numbers exist but because they are part of a system which we declared to have infinite numbers so it could be compatible with our experience of space, currency, energy, combinations, etc. To actually prove the existence of god using math in the way you want, you would need to prove that the axioms are a direct consequence of a fundamental force of the universe and that the universe is all a direct consequence of mathematics. But it's impossible, fundamentalist mathematicians resort to the human experience as the basis of math and phisicist only make models of very precise but limited accuracy of the real world which will never be perfect because math is processed by us mere mortals. I'm not trying to say god isn't real (which may or may not be) but the whole video is based on the premise that math is fundamentally discovered and not invented when math is at it's core declared by us limited mortals playing with ideas and then discovering other things that come as logic conclusions of those axioms. Then there is the Mandelbrot set, which is just a graph drawn on a cartesian/complex plane that we invented with established rules for expressing equations on it which we made, is a graph as special as any other graphic such as the circumference graph which also gives you a set of infinite points with a pretty pattern but of course you wouldn't use that as an exaple because it's just too simple and everyone could understand it and replicate it; to me the Mandelbrot set argument falls into the theistic argument category of "It looks pretty but it's natural and only artists can make pretty things so an all powerful artist made it" without taking into consideration the mental computing of what makes a human think that something is pretty and even nothingness could be pretty because "prettyness" is a completely subjective quality that depends of the one that experiences it, not of the one who made it

[@IncredibleMD]

So, all humans, living throughout the world and throughout time, just happened to create the same set of axioms that lead to the same infinitely logical and yet completely consistent system of math?

[@fernandofernandez8723]

Thank you for this. His video sounded like a whole lot of gibberish to me. Especially his part on the Mandelbrot set, which is graphed on something humans invented which happened to look kind of cool. Us humans didn’t invent nor discover maths, maths is merely our interpretation of the world.

[@krovraink]

@@IncredibleMDbruv... You do realise before the 20h century and the progagation of recorded knowledge throughout the world, different regions had their own regional mathematical systems? Of course, the basics of these were the same; but these could be seen as pretty obvious like the fact that 1 is not equal to 0 and 1 + 1 = 2, purely by observing the world

[@PA-1000]

​@@fernandofernandez8723if math is how we interpret the world then why is infinite such an important and foundational subject in Math when it doesn't exist in the known world?

[@PA-1000]

​@@krovrainkyour claim that math is different in other regions of the world is just wrong 💀. You do realize we derive our math from the Arabians and the Greeks right? And they build off each other too.

[@Valid_opinionist]

Math does NOT control the universe, we've made it up to explain and observe things ,Pi isnt that number becuse we said it is,pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter of it. Which would mean that ratio itself has always existed but we made up numbers to know what it could really be, the pi could be letters if we said so. Mandelbrot shape isnt quote on quote "designed" by someone ,it is "designed" by those units we input

[@MicahUhl]

but we discovered it that means it was designed. re read what u just wrote.

[@benrayner17]

​@@MicahUhlWas it designed, or does it just exist? Where's the proof that it was designed?

[@MicahUhl]

@@benrayner17 something cant come from nothing. it was either created by God or bhy our own imagination. but as the video clearly shows, we cannot create it

[@benrayner17]

@@MicahUhl It didn't come from nothing, though. It's a ratio. We observed it.

[@ibnebatuta4868]

​@@benrayner17the ratio, the pattern the logic of universe is designed by God We can only communicate those concepts through maths Maths is like a language to understand the things Just like eng language, for example if you are seeing ceiling fan, you can comprehend what it is and next time you see it, you will understand it's the same thing but how will you describe it? Of course you will use a Language and call it a ceiling fan, that's how you will communicate it Same goes for maths We can see and observe patterns but the way we describe those patterns we call it maths

[@Fluxinate]

my man describing math while he is high on meth .

[@alle_edits]

walter cooked some good stuff ngl

[@Fluxinate]

@@alle_edits fr

[@cloroxbleach9222]

This video is basically - Math is infinite and complex - God is infinite and complex - Conclusion: MATH PROVES GOD!!!??

[@naaavy3571]

That's the issue. If he wants to believe in God, that's fine. However claiming the mandelbrot set proves God? That's too far fetch. Math doesn't automatically mean God is real.

[@FrogsAreGods]

thats like saying: - this towel is wet - i am wet - conclusion: this towel is sentient

[@moller4149]

fallacy of undistributed middle is always funny i think

[@vladyslavlavrenov9167]

No it means the patterns are complex and yet beautiful and infinite, which is weird if you consider everything was born from nothingness and pure chaos if God wasn't real

[@dylankrahn6057]

@@vladyslavlavrenov9167 God was created from nothingness Is the only way I could possibly see it witch still has confusion

[@greeny5549]

To be fair, after taking multiple college calculus courses to be an engineer, I wouldn’t be surprised if math was just our opinion.

[@NathanPaterson_2]

Well than I can say 2+2=5 and I would be no less correct than someone who says 2+2=4 2+2 still equals 4 even if there is no humans to have an opinion about it, therefore math is objective and not an opinion.

[@rrelocks]

yha i agree

[@cloud9epic26]

@@NathanPaterson_2 that only makes sense for more complex equations because you can literally count with your fingers 2+2=4

[@NathanPaterson_2]

@@cloud9epic26 what are you trying to say? my whole point is that yes 2+2=4 no matter what anyone's opinion says therefore math is objective.

[@cloud9epic26]

@@NathanPaterson_2 you said it was no less correct than someone else you says 2+2=4

[@PrkrS]

Bro is onto NOTHING 😭🙏🏻

[@MohammedHassan-pt2yv]

he only spoke common sense I was saying the same before watching this vid.

[@PrkrS]

@@MohammedHassan-pt2yv no bruh this is NOT common sense. “Hurr durr this impossible thing exists so why can’t god?” Literally a fallacy.

[@ithinkso27]

​@@PrkrS youre like 15 acting like you even know what fallacy means

[@jason3351]

@@ithinkso27 the thing in quotes is a fallacy, that is an unsound argument

[@sleptdiiyer]

@@PrkrSit’s not a fallacy it’s kind of a basic principle now since many agree that something cannot come out of something. So the existence of math proves there is a supernatural being or thing that created it. Did you even pay attention to Galileo’s quote by the end of the video? Love you brother don’t take any offense to this, just tryna to explain further if you’re confused

[@thf2765]

This is like saying "Because there is no perfect circle in nature and it has an infinite amount of symmetry it is supernatural and God made it"

[@ebi-chan414]

and if they find a perfect circle they would say that only god could make it. Just irrefutable arguments every time.

[@nes3sese734]

it's an argument that there are absolute truths, and absolute truths are cropped version of the true absolute who has them all because they're not really absolutes if they could exist on their own. mathematical proofs are not treated as an absolute because they're true provided that axioms are true but science is yet to discover if it follows in all circumstances.

[@tates300monkyears4]

As a math major, I would like to point out that the Planck length exists, and math studies relationships between groups, just because math (especially analysis based systems) describes infinite things doesn’t mean the universes set of possible information is infinite.

[@shuwohd2343]

I always thought of that, can all physics be reduced to a indivisible unit like plank length?

[@InspiredCaterpie]

​@@shuwohd2343essentially, because distances below a plank length basically have no meaning, as it is physically impossible to determine the positioning of something to that fine of detail, and generally nothing we've come up with can explain gravity, geometry, and time at that small a scale (yet)

[@danh945]

But it could be if we expanded outside of our own universe. Maths can contain infinite possibilities, but some of those possibilities are not infinite. As I say elsewhere x^2 + y^2 = 1 is finite, and yet exists within maths which is infinite. In fact there would be an infinite number of finite things within that infinite set. Maybe our finite universe is one of them?

[@g_g...]

I don't believe in this nonsense of a video, but I have a curious question. If the Planck length exists, does that mean that nothing is actually, absolutely infinite?

[@zebrabw01]

@@g_g...YES!!!!!!!

[@babybackben9426]

As someone who loves calculus, it seems that the limit doesn’t exist

[@sniperdaddyz4229]

😂😂

[@bigbean8343]

🤓

[@amandawolfe4097]

🤓🤓🤓

[@planteruines5619]

theorem of incompletude of Godel , the reason why moral truth and mathematical truth can't be mixed

[@linkfiedproductions2246]

Yes

[@OctolinkG]

This guy should be in the olympics with how good he is a jumping to conclusions

[@jacobchastant1205]

Didnt make me believe in god but I now worship the mandelbrot set

[@gigi-xl3pc]

It’s cause since the begging of time everyone and everything has tried to make god as a human being and that YOU need to worship him. God is more than that. If you want you can think of god as an energy or even entity, he is everywhere and in everything. When he first began to create sound and light came first. Sound is vibration everything is vibrating. Literally your cells are at this moment. Literally words that come out your mouth. Everything is god. You could do more research too, to know what you truly believe in

[@cewla3348]

@@gigi-xl3pc so.. why doesn't temperature make waves? if the vibration of particles is the sound of god, why can some things make heat? because heat is literally just vibrations of particles - is my stove god? all sound makes friction makes heat, so when i speak, does god speak too? surely the idea of god "speaking" loses all meaning, then?

[@koopa5504]

@@gigi-xl3pc You sound like some freaky Jedi hahaha

[@pitertauer3168]

I’m a catholic, so i believe in God, but couldn’t one argue that we designed math in such a way that “has to be” like this and thus explaining the points in the video?

[@kingvax064]

Yes, there are axioms "simple basic non-proven rules" that develop into all sorts of interesting propierties, potentially infinite, but math is invented

[@mism847]

The universe wasn't created to fit math, math was created to fit the universe

[@Itsdasummer32]

@@mism847exactly

[@Spino-hx2mr]

@@kingvax064 That might be true, but the Concepts and Systems that Math is based off aren't invented, they already exist in the Universe.

[@G-manFan1]

neither bc math wasn't invented@@mism847

[@GroundZero_US]

It makes sense why most ancient civilizations across all continents considered mathematics to be a philosophical discipline, as opposed to just a tool. Edit: 1. Ancient Greek Society: • Pythagoreans (6th century BC): Explored the idea of the mathematical harmony of the cosmos, connecting mathematics with the fundamental structure of the universe. • Euclid (3rd century BC): Demonstrated the logical rigor and axiomatic structure in mathematics, laying the foundation for deductive reasoning and the philosophy of mathematics. 2. Ancient Indian Society: • Aryabhata (5th century AD): Explored the astronomical significance of mathematics, integrating mathematical calculations with celestial observations, contributing to the philosophical understanding of the cosmos. • Brahmagupta (7th century AD): Introduced philosophical concepts related to zero, negative numbers, and the solutions to quadratic equations, challenging traditional Indian philosophical ideas about the nature of numbers and reality. 3. Ancient Chinese Society: • Liu Hui (3rd century AD): Philosophically explored the concept of infinite geometric series, raising questions about the nature of infinity and its implications for the understanding of the universe. • Zu Chongzhi (5th century AD): Extended the philosophical discussions on the mathematical concept of π, contemplating the infinite and the finite within mathematical and cosmological contexts. 4. Islamic Golden Age: • Al-Khwarizmi (9th century AD): Philosophically delved into the nature of equations and solutions, leading to abstract algebraic thinking, challenging conventional philosophical ideas about mathematical abstraction and reality. • Omar Khayyam (11th century AD): Explored the philosophical implications of mathematical geometry, investigating the nature of Euclidean postulates and the conceptual foundations of geometric space.

[@lucasc4s]

But the first civilizations did use mathematics as a tool, such as the "Kashim" table, from Babylon, the oldest civilization, only later with the Phoenicians, Greeks and Latins had a truly "complete" vocabulary like today's.

[@AnkuronMahantaRx4n]

Math was originally used to quantify and measure our world it wasn’t meant to be something that explained the world

[@neutch1991]

that has little to do with metaphysical reasons, it's just that academic thoought and philsophy were much more related before they had time to branch off during modernity

[@ready1fire1aim1]

The Bible is a contradictory mess. Sam Harris and the reason project found near 70,000 contradictions between the canonical Greek New Testament and the Masoretic Text version of the Torah. Do you think the Bible is supposed to be that way? I don't. So here's how to remove the contradictions: During the Babylonian captivity the "harlot of Babylon" syncretized God's biblical titles, those being El, Elah and Elohim, to all simply mean "God". So from 500-600bc to this day El still means God, which is cool, but Elah also just means God... and Elohim...yep, just means God. Anyone think that creates a lot of contradictions in the Bible? I sure do. The Church even made it heretical to call Yahweh Elohim from Genesis 2 the bad guy of the Old Testament. This spawned "apologetics" (for the Devil). They did this because the Septuagint just said Theos everywhere that El, Elah and Elohim should be. So, the Greeks thought Yahweh was introduced as "Theos" in Genesis 2. The Vulgate does the same thing it just says Deus in all the places El, Elah and Elohim should be. Also, the Latin people thought Yahweh was introduced as "Deus" in Genesis 2. Modern English Bibles still do this with removing God's titles. Most just say God and LORD God everywhere. Try using the NOG translation it's on Bible Gateway and also there's a free App on your phone. Remember to use a different language when you want info on God's titles. Hebrew is forever syncretized. The Latin counterparts are Deus "God", Dea "Goddess or feminine title of God" and Dei which has two uses one plural "gods" and one possessive "God's" based on context. Genesis 1 is the possessive context for Elohim. True Elohim. Genesis 2 is the plural context for Elohim. False Elohim. BAM! No more contradictions in the Bible. Cohesive story :)

[@ahnaflfc369]

​@@AnkuronMahantaRx4nthat's why physics is all math 😂

[@Redx3257]

Dude… you really need to start better understanding fallacious reasoning. This is kind of embarrassing..

[@hehehe6959]

When was the last time you went outside and looked at the sky

[@Redx3257]

@@hehehe6959 today at the beach...

[@bandanabhatt5543]

One big issue -- How can you say that the universe is finite? That is a statement present evidence for it. And something which is infinite can have more infinites in it.

[@mrfigaloopierre9610]

One even bigger issue, we can't actually represent infinite numbers without infinite space, just because you can keep getting ever more precise, or representing an ever bigger number does not mean that infinity truly exists.

[@ancmolfese4825]

@@mrfigaloopierre9610Numbers are infinite.

[@mrfigaloopierre9610]

@@ancmolfese4825 numbers are a system through which any value may be represented, because there is no limit to how long numbers may be made, numbers may represent every number approaching (but not including) infinities

[@ParadoxDev_]

The problem with this video is that maths isn't just discovered or invented, it's both. Maths is definitely something we can quantify and measure but at the same time, mathematics as a system of logic is fundamentally natural. True, mathematics does contain infinite information, an infinite amount of possibilities, but that doesn't necessarily mean they exist, it just means they can exist. We do of course discover math, the example of pi is a good one, but at the same time, we invent mathematics. Take for example, i, the square root of -1, a new type of number that hadn't existed previously, that's used in multiple areas such as holomorphic dynamics. This number cannot exist in the real world because it quite literally doesn't, yet with mathematics we invented it to help solve problems. Similarly we use this invention and leverage its properties to apply it to the real world. Another way you can almost show we invent mathematics is the fact that practically every mathematical problem, at its heart, requires absurd requirements to be calculable outside of an ideal, theoretical environment. Take something as simple as a circle, which is defined as all the points a radius length away from a central point. No matter how hard you try, you can never get an actual, true circle because length is quantised, as in, there is a minimum amount of length(the planck length). Your argument completely breaks down once you consider that even though we can prove things in maths, we cant always prove things. This is the incompleteness theorem, which proves mathematics is incomplete because it's a logical system. No system of logic can prove everything, and this applies to proving God. To say you can prove God using maths is to say there is a proof for such a thing, but if there was a proof for such a thing then you would have to show it isn't subject to the incompleteness theorem. Furthermore to prove God with maths you need numbers, algebra etc. You can't just name qualities of both mathematics and God and declare them equal because of such. That's like saying that since penguins have two feet, two eyes and a mouth and bears have two feet, two eyes and a mouth, they are therefore the same. You also make the mistake of saying mathematics is not of the natural world, which it very much is if we're also inventing it at times, such as with the mandelbrot set. There is also the final step of saying that God invented mathematics as opposed to, mathematics is something that is akin to a God, the difference being that mathematics doesn't care at all about moral and philosophical questions. While I myself know very little about mathematics, I do know enough to be able to say that you cannot generalise mathematics to either a creation of the human mind or to a creation of God, it's somewhere in between where its more so a creation that applies very closely to the natural world of which we know next to nothing of why it exists. Your video at its heart is lacking in research and misunderstands a lot of what makes maths a creation of the human mind, and its rather fallacious, however If you are interested in mathematics and not just trying to find ways to prove an unprovable God, I suggest you read up a lot on proofs, axioms, complex numbers and everything we have created in pursuit of a finer logical system. Oh and just I small thing about proofs, to prove something, you don't just need to note qualities and quantities, you need to verifiably prove via numerous methods such as contradiction, induction etc that a statement or two variables are true or equal.

[@Muffln]

Very great argument, summed up exactly why I have always disliked the idea of "proof" when it comes to arguments about theism and atheism. You are very articulate and I would love to see Redeemed Zoomer respond to this.

[@Naturemaxxer_]

great response, this video argument is fundamentally flawed and poor in general, the spirit is there, but the creator needs to do his research properly otherwise he makes himself look like a child with those easily disprovable arguments. (sorrry for my english, im not native)

[@killianmiller6107]

What I had heard of regarding the connection between mathematics and theism comes from an idea from Eugene Winger’s article “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences” which argues that it cannot be by mere chance that maths are so effective at explaining the physical world if the universe came from a random explosion and masses crashing into each other by chance. It has to do with the intelligibility of the universe (one of the axioms that makes science work), and a valid answer to this intelligibility is a creative intellect. If we discover a book with a story, setting, conflict, plot, characters, etc, we can reason that it has an intelligent author because the story is intelligible and intends to convey/reveal some truth. In the same way, the theistic argument is that we can observe the entire natural world and find that it has intelligibility, which points to an intelligent creator (though maybe it doesn’t prove it in the strict sense, idk). Thoughts?

[@mikehawk6175]

⁠@@killianmiller6107the real world has both intelligible and unintelligible properties so it doesn’t always make sense by our predictable standards of logic. Math is basically our effort at reverse engineering and trying to make sense of the concepts of the universe but it doesn’t guarantee that its how it was originally created, randomly or otherwise. Math isn’t foolproof either, it starts to more or less fall apart at the quantum level where things start getting hazy and can’t easily be explained by our current version of mathematics.

[@DiftingWinters-cj6fs]

"While I myself know very little about mathematics" I refuse to believe this lol

[@jagerschnitzel379]

This is the level of Logic I have when I'm drunk

[@raven2070]

so fucking real

[@millec60]

Even for a bible thumper this is some terrible logic lol

[@juilianbautista4067]

@@millec60 explain, or else you're just a thumper except without the Bible. Lol.

[@millec60]

@@juilianbautista4067 First of all, our universe is infinite, not finite. Second of all, math was invented to comprehend the universe. Mandelbrot set is cool and all that but because there's an infinite amount of real numbers to plug in, it has some weird properties, which has nothing to do with there being a god or not.

[@qerror9465]

​@@millec60Its still possible for it to be finite. All we can declare for now is just that its bigger than we can observe. Its big, but it definitely has a limit. General relativity agrees to this, since it requires a finite spherical universe; it cannot be infinite because of Mach's Principle, with which Einstein strongly agreed, that the mass of a body is finite, is determined by all other matter in the universe, thus all other matter in universe must be finite. Conclusion is that we cannot prove the universe as finite neither infinite.

[@suspicioussand]

"look you can zoom into this shape that means god exists"

[@DaBigBoo_]

yes

[@OmarMammadov064]

We mean its infinite and our world is finite. How something infitine can exsist in finite world?

[@darkstormheute]

@@OmarMammadov064 who says the world is finite

[@OmarMammadov064]

@@darkstormheute sience.

[@bulb9970]

@@OmarMammadov064 Math isn’t a physical thing, it’s just a language we created to understand the universe. Languages also have an infinite amount of letter combinations because they don’t literally exist in the real world. The Mandelbrot Set exists not because someone designed it, but because it MUST exist in an infinite amount of number combinations. So there’s no contradiction or supernatural thing going on here.

[@AlexanderCook-cf9cg]

Controlling and expaining are very different saying that math. controls the universe is like saying that a nature documentary controls the bugs.

[@ClockworkGearhead]

"Science can't prove or disprove god." "Now we'll be using this branch of science called mathematics to..."

[@wizardmongol4868]

that doesnt really make much sense OP is against that argument but still entertains it

[@herclasnido]

Math is not a branch of science. Math is the language of science. Without maths there is no science. Thus, math is above science.

[@emmersonsimeao]

Maybe math is not into science, maybe science is into math

[@ClockworkGearhead]

@@herclasnido "Mathematics is the science and study of quality, structure, space, and change." _Science._ QED

[@wizardmongol4868]

@@emmersonsimeao yeah one of my issues is that he seems to just twist words to equate what is being referred when OP isn’t doing or saying that at all it’s little changes to make the dishonest points in either case the real mystery is how this thread doesn’t have like 20 r-slurs autists screaming at each other

[@Cad3ncee]

Math is a language model, this is like saying that the English language contains everything in the universe because the language can he used to describe it. Math doesn't contain anything, it represents it. It's just a way to understand what we observe and hypothesise what we may observe using patterns that have been demonstrated to be consistent

[@kingkwam3816]

english cant describe evrything in the universe though nor is english infinite

[@hoetaru1711]

@@kingkwam3816 Doesn't refute his point though, do you believe that it's a 1 to 1 or a representation based on testable results? do you believe that our ruler to measure the universe is absolute, and not a scale made from our frame of reference?

[@beverlyyoung5862]

He literally talks about your argument at thr start of the video

[@ezekiel440]

@@hoetaru1711☝️🤓

[@kingkwam3816]

@@hoetaru1711 i dont really give a fuck. just pointing out the difference

[@munishbadhwar4829]

The amount of yapping in this video is infinitely funny.

[@thiagoloddi3212]

I don't know what's worse, the sheer amount of disinformation or Comic Sans

[@silversjunkpile]

Both.

[@4U70_DeadAuto]

Everything.

[@ToyotaaANTIGD]

None

[@Ashishsharma-fw8nu]

Math is a system designed to fail me in academics

[@caninepals]

Lol too true 🤣

[@philistired]

Me who can do set theory but has a C in algebra:

[@rovertronic]

i failed calculus 1 ... but i am sure good at using c ++ !!! i'm sure i could understand calculus 1 if it was explained to me in programming terms instead of academic mathematical notation... unforch...

[@TahirAhmad-io6uw]

@@dangit69420 Ok bro, you can't just make a claim and back it up without reasoning. Plus, you haven't (and never will) live in the consciousness of someone else's, so you can't just say math isn't hard because it isn't hard for you. That's called an opinion, and based on the way your saying it, it's quite inconsiderate of people who don't truly understand it. I don't know the science behind it, but I am more than sure that math people have a psychological advantage over "non-math people." Rather foolish comment.

[@dangit69420]

@@TahirAhmad-io6uw true, while i wasn't exactly trying to say that "bro math is the simplest thing ever you are dumb if you don't understand it" or something like that, the way i wrote that reply made it seem like i was trying to say that. almost everything in your reply is absolutely true. also math people don't have psychological advantage over others.

[@albedougnut]

This video makes a huge leap in logic when it goes from math possessing a concept of infinity to math therefore being created by God. Infinity is just that -- a concept.

[@ohimdabiggestbird]

facts top to bottom

[@007arek]

It's not that simple. We don't know if we invented math or we just discover it.

[@8-bitpersona16]

But he mentions that math can only exist in the mind near the beginning of the video. So if math is infinite, it must exist in the mind of a infinitely existing person. I wish he spend more time on that aspect, or made a longer video, but idk.

[@thegreatchipman]

@@007arek Correct, and this argument assumes that math was discovered, which renders it invalid

[@ahhhsothisishowyouchangean162]

@@thegreatchipmanthat is the problem we will never know. Like, we may never disprove super natural because we don’t know what it is, and we can’t prove super natural. Because it is the supernatural. The video is arguing for a God which is pretty invalid cuz God is supernatural and it will be hard to observe. The question, “did we invent math or discover math” already renders “math proves god exist” pointless.

[@cyberneticqualanaut7207]

Mathematics is a language, invented by people, to help explain and discover patterns both in nature and as concepts in our minds. The universe is a sense computes, but mathematics goes beyond what is computable. The thing about his video is that I don't think he is either a philosopher or a mathematician. He is making an invalid argument. Just because mathematics might have concepts for infinite information doesn't mean the Christian God invented mathematics. We humans invented the language of mathematics. There are the conceptual possibilities of infinite information and of infinite patterns we've discovered like the Mandelbrot set. So perhaps something created a reality in which such infinite patterns exist, but that doesn't need to be a Christian God. Maybe it's the God of the Jains, or the Sikhs, or the Hindus. Maybe the multiverse itself has a mind that creates. The idea of an infinite mind as the Christian God by definition is arbitrarily imposing one possible model for reality. Some people need to expand their imagination. It could be so much weirder than this. It could have been Kali for all we know.

[@cludration]

lol do better research and think in another way

[@cyberneticqualanaut7207]

@@cludration kind of a stupid reply to a lengthy and thoughtful comment...

[@cludration]

@@cyberneticqualanaut7207 xd no offense sorry

[@rokaq5163]

_Math_ brought him to act like he was high on _meth,_ led him to believe in a _myth_ just like light leads a _moth_ to their demise, and he won't shut his _mouth_ about it.

[@nooby1220]

why doesnt this have more likes

[@piface3016]

As a Math major this was a bit cringy... Pi isn't "The number that explains the area of a circle", it's just the ratio between a circumference and its diameter. That's why we can't "make it have whatever value we want", because all circles are similar to each other -- meaning this ratio is the same for every circle. It's no more mystical than saying that, in a square, the ratio of height divided by length is 1. Or diagonal divided by length is sqrt(2). These things are embedded in the definition of a square or of a circle, you just state the definition and then derive these properties. There's no need for magic in that process. The argument about how "You can encode books as numbers, therefore Math is supernatural" was a little weird too, how does that argument go exactly? "There's a 1-to-1 correspondence between natural numbers and states of the universe, therefore natural numbers are a larger infinity than the physical universe"? Is that it? That's just saying "The universe is finite but the naturals are never-ending", but that also just comes from the definition of the naturals. You simply state, "At least one natural number exists" and "Every natural number has a successor" and there you go, from those two sentences you can derive these properties, you don't need them to "exist somewhere". You're just applying logic to statements.

[@zackyvt]

Love this comment. I also cringed when he said "math is the study of numbers". That's how you know he has never taken a college level math class.

[@Dock284]

It feels like this guy hasn't taken beyond a high school math course. Hell I know kids that understand what math is better.

[@Hithereitsme32]

Lol he’s a math major guys

[@AquinasBased]

ur being pedantic.

[@wetstoffels3198]

In that case, logic is immortal.

[@A_Wild_Dyzzy]

That “someone” is Benoit Mandelbrot, and he taught at Yale for years before he retired and unfortunately passed away in 2010. He was the man that figured out that very calculation to explain fractals. I’m sure you can find a lecture or thesis where he explains it.

[@noobnessmee]

But he didn't invented it, he discovered it like gravity.

[@Phoenix80675]

​@@noobnessmeenobody said he did?

[@LeLe-pm2pr]

@@noobnessmee inventing vs discovering math is an interesting debate, point is that mandelbrot was the first to graph it

[@Lyonessi]

@@LeLe-pm2pr I agree. Is there anything new? Or is everything simply reformed something?

[@tone618]

benoit mandelbrot is god guys

[@Theo-qo7ov]

I'm tryna become god like in the Red Dwarf show by being better at maths and improv comedy than anyone else by constantly arguing

[@naalex132]

I used chatgpt to analyze the video and heres what it said: Prompt: If I give you a video transcript would you be able to analyze it and point out each the flaws in the argument? Analysis of Flaws False Dichotomy: The argument presents only two possibilities: math is either a human invention or a supernatural discovery. There could be other explanations, such as math being an inherent property of the universe. Non Sequitur: The conclusion that math's infinite nature implies a supernatural origin doesn't logically follow from the premises. Just because math describes the universe doesn't mean it must exist outside the universe. Argument from Incredulity: The assertion that the Mandelbrot Set's complexity means it must be designed is based on the speaker's disbelief that it could exist otherwise, not on evidence. Equivocation: The term "infinite" is used ambiguously. Mathematical infinity (conceptual) and physical infinity (actual) are different, and conflating the two leads to faulty conclusions. Begging the Question: The argument assumes what it tries to prove: that the existence of complex mathematical structures necessitates a designer. Category Error: The video suggests math exists in a supernatural mind, which conflates abstract concepts (math) with physical existence. Appeal to Authority: Citing Galileo without context is an appeal to authority. Galileo's metaphor about math being the language of the universe doesn't necessarily support the video's conclusions. Conclusion The video's argumentation contains several logical fallacies, including false dichotomy, non sequitur, argument from incredulity, equivocation, begging the question, category error, and appeal to authority. Each of these undermines the strength of the claim that the existence of math proves the existence of God.

[@naalex132]

Additionally just to maintain a fair stance I asked... Prompt: Point out each of the supporting arguments While the video’s main argument is flawed, some points are based on sound logic and are worth considering: Science's Limits: Science explains the natural world but doesn't address questions about the supernatural. This is a reasonable distinction since science, by definition, deals with empirical evidence. Abstract Nature of Math: Math is an abstract system that we discover rather than invent. This perspective aligns with the philosophical view of mathematical Platonism, which suggests that mathematical truths exist independently of human thought. Math’s Explanatory Power: Math’s ability to describe natural phenomena accurately supports its fundamental role in understanding the universe. This doesn't prove a supernatural origin but underscores the deep connection between math and physical reality. These points highlight the importance of recognizing the limitations of science and the abstract nature of mathematics, although they don’t directly support the video's ultimate conclusion. Note: Its interesting to see that none of the points it suggested actually relate to god being connected to math, though its worth considering that I asked "point out the flaws" before asking "point out supporting arguments", though you'd normally expect a direct answer from chatgpt, but this time it seemed to divert the question, not answering it.

[@natv8059]

If you apply this logic, that means that the English alphabet, for example, was discovered and not invented as the 26 letters (plus the spaces between them) can create an infinite amount of words, combinations, and everything ever, in the past or future, has been encoded.

[@kingkwam3816]

it can creae a fuck ton of w9rds and combinations of words however that number is nowhere near infinity

[@flooshlikescheese9944]

The alphabet doesn't have only 26 letters, for some reason after the alphabet "z" there's "aa" and after "zz" there's "aaa". But why though...

[@Chubbywubbysandwich]

@@kingkwam3816 Its countably infinite, but nevertheless it is infinite.

[@jumbeer5572]

Language is infnite, what would be the problem with that

[@natv8059]

@@jumbeer5572 so if numbers are infinite, it’s created by god?

[@hmingthansangavangchhia4913]

As a PhD scholar in a field of science I doubt any scientist believe or ever claimed that we know everything about the universe as stated at the beginning of the video.

[@ohimdabiggestbird]

this dude making the video barely knows a thing, cluelessly confident

[@swamprat22]

he never said we know everything about the universe

[@hmingthansangavangchhia4913]

​@@swamprat22He did say that atheists believe science explains everything in the universe.

[@swamprat22]

yes. science explaining everything is not the same as us understanding everything about the universe.@@hmingthansangavangchhia4913

[@therealseam]

@@hmingthansangavangchhia4913that doesn't mean atheists know all about science then right?

[@MethanoicAcid]

Logical Fallacy

[@user-yz2xl1tu6t]

Can you elaborate?, I am genuinely curious and not so bright in organized logic,(sorry for bad English)

[@nostromza3433]

@@user-yz2xl1tu6t simplified "its infinite so therefore god exists"

[@o_visionario_37]

But it is how it works​@@nostromza3433

[@bulb9970]

@@user-yz2xl1tu6t "Basic common sense says that someone designed the Mandelbrot Set" That's false since math is infinite. So by probability, the Mandelbrot Set must always have existed somewhere out there

[@koopa5504]

@@user-yz2xl1tu6t That's exactly the problem... religion draws all those not so bright ones together to spread bullshit.

[@ninjacraft366]

If this does not convince people that god is real, they just refuse to believe it as they don't want to be wrong

[@OctolinkG]

did you like watch the video?

[@ninjacraft366]

@@OctolinkG Why would I click on the video just not to watch it? Of course I did.

[@OctolinkG]

@@ninjacraft366 I don’t believe you

[@ninjacraft366]

@@OctolinkG So I can't comment something without someone like you saying I didn't watch the video?

[@ragingdogeblade6190]

@@ninjacraft366 What's the highest level math course you've taken?

[@nutronstar45]

"math cannot be contained in our universe so it must be contained somewhere else" i love how you completely ignored the possibility that it is not contained

[@nutronstar45]

@@regeneratus explain

[@edwinjaner5978]

This

[@edwinjaner5978]

​@@regeneratusWhere are concepts contained?

[@nutronstar45]

@@edwinjaner5978 bet they'll say "god's mind"

[@Knightfall21]

@@nutronstar45 define "contained"

[@TheRealJman87]

This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of "information" in quantum mechanics. Just because an idea can be indefinitely expanded upon, or because the concept of infinity exists within mathematics, does not mean that the universe would need to be infinitely large to "contain" every possible number in mathematics. There is an infinite number of digits in pi because pi does not fit neatly into our numbering system. That's it. There is also an infinite number of digits in 1/3 after the decimal. That doesn't prove that the numbers pi and 1/3 must be supernatural in origin. Those infinite digits do not actually exist anywhere unless you compute them, because numbers and digits are just an invention of the mind that we use to more easily understand mathematical relationships. Now, actually *computing* all of those digits would require an infinite amount of information, which is impossible in a finite universe, but that's not what you were talking about.

[@T800-theRealOne]

Exactly. This guy makes a huge fallacious argument.

[@eddieberg1840]

As an atheist I wonder how this man thinks a flying god that knows everything and can do everything and just existing bc of no reason is more logical then a universe just simple existing fir no reason, theres no debate, god objectively does not exist, anyone who belives in god today is either a person who was in a religous family their whole childhood and now they're to emotionaly connected to leave flying tea cups and a bunch of bs, or they have 50-90 iq and first didnt belive in god and then suddently they start beliveing in it. have tou also noticed that every religous person ever has been religous for their entire life almost? Hmm maybe thats bc god was made up thousands of years ago by dumb people trying to explain reality? So now that we know how the world works, naturally, without god and magic supernatural things that objectively cant exist, shold we still bring back Tor to explain lightning???????? Fuck me man

[@LoL-tv8ym]

And some people believe this guy, can you believe that? Because they don't know anything about FUCKİNG SCİENCE.

[@robloxsigner148]

Exactly

[@eastsidedirtykid]

Disagree with all of you

[@colbywheeler6196]

math is not supernatural it is just a language we use to document logical thinking and solve problems

[@piuli95]

Math proves math, if you think math proving math is god then thats your reality.

[@gedstrom]

The existence of God can NEITHER be proved nor disproved by human logic.

[@jr.jackrabbit10]

This should be the top comment of every video debating the existence or non-existence of God. There will always be another question, placed somewhere new or deeper that can then be deflected / spun by the other side, continuing on and on forever. Personally, I don't subscribe to any one religion, or the existence of God / gods, but I am willing to listen to anyone that thinks they have the true answer, the one final solution to end the debate. But I wholeheartedly believe that day will never come, unless something happens that completely alters the direction of humanity in a way that can be explained completely by divine interference and not some other natural phenomena that we have already observed time and time again.

[@fabianwittmann8121]

If god exists, then he definitely can be proven to exist. For example he could just show himself. Disproving god is impossible. So imo it makes sense to assume, that god doesn't exist, as long as the provable existance isn't proven.

[@satriadicky3732]

​@@fabianwittmann8121You need to take into account of God's property before just dismissing it easily as "he could just show himself." First of all, God cannot be confined by space or boundary, he is everywhere. God is also omnipotent, so he is not bounded by the natural law. Problem is how do you expect a human can perceive a being that is everywhere and doesn't follow the natural order? We see through light, hear from vibration. Should a being like that 'show' himself, can we even perceive him?

[@fabianwittmann8121]

@@satriadicky3732 dude, he is supposed to be omnipotent. Not being able to show yourself contradicts omnipotence.

[@connorself]

Incredibly real take. The whole point of faith is to believe in it, not to have evidence or proof for that belief in question. Have a great day gedstrom

[@Enigmatic_philosopher]

To provide a more formal analysis of the argument presented in the video using propositional logic, let’s break down the argument into its core propositions and analyze the logical structure. We’ll use standard logical notation and then assess the validity of the argument. Propositions 1. P1: Science cannot explain the supernatural (S → ¬SN) • Where S = Science explains, SN = Supernatural 2. P2: Mathematics is not observable in the natural world (¬O → M) • Where O = Observable, M = Mathematics 3. P3: Mathematics explains the natural world (M → EN) • Where EN = Explains Natural world 4. P4: Either mathematics is a human invention or it pre-exists as a controller of the universe (H XOR P) • Where H = Human invention, P = Pre-existing controller 5. P5: Mathematics contains infinite information (M → I) • Where I = Infinite information 6. P6: The universe is finite (U → F) • Where U = Universe, F = Finite 7. P7: If mathematics is infinite and the universe is finite, then mathematics cannot be contained within the universe (I ∧ F → ¬C) • Where C = Contained within the universe 8. P8: The Mandelbrot Set demonstrates infinite complexity (MDS → IC) • Where MDS = Mandelbrot Set, IC = Infinite Complexity 9. P9: Infinite complexity suggests a designer (IC → D) • Where D = Designer 10. P10: If mathematics is in the mind and contains infinite information, it implies an all-knowing, all-powerful, supernatural mind (M ∧ I → G) • Where G = God (all-knowing, all-powerful, supernatural mind) Logical Structure 1. (S → ¬SN) ∧ (¬O → M) ∧ (M → EN) ∧ (H XOR P) 2. (M → I) ∧ (U → F) ∧ (I ∧ F → ¬C) 3. (MDS → IC) ∧ (IC → D) 4. (M ∧ I → G) Analysis • The argument’s validity depends on whether the conclusions logically follow from the premises. • Premises P1, P2, and P3 set up the distinction between the natural world and the realm of mathematics. • Premises P4, P5, P6, and P7 suggest that mathematics, being infinite, cannot originate from the finite universe. • Premises P8 and P9 link the complexity of the Mandelbrot Set to the idea of a designer. • The crucial premise P10 asserts that the nature of mathematics implies the existence of God. Critique • The transition from P7 to P10 is a significant logical leap. The conclusion that an infinite, abstract realm implies a divine mind is not a necessary consequence of the premises. • Premises P8 and P9 (related to the Mandelbrot Set) employ a form of the teleological argument, which is more an inference than a logical deduction. • The argument also assumes that the abstract nature of mathematics (P5) necessitates a supernatural origin, which is a metaphysical assumption rather than a logical conclusion. While the argument presents a series of logical propositions connecting mathematics with the concept of God, the leap from abstract mathematical concepts to the existence of a divine, supernatural being is more inferential and metaphysical than strictly logical. The premises do not necessarily entail the conclusion, indicating a potential weakness in the argument’s overall validity.

[@lolibear]

cap

[@benjicubicure5210]

Cap

[@benjicubicure5210]

Also we are talking about God, Whom you cannot see, Hear or other stuff in normal circumstances, so it probably seems life a metaphysical leap, but its not. its just that we cant define God in our minds, and if we do, the thats not the true God, it would be your version, Math is just one proof of God, There is Much more, for instance, History , Creation itself, the Bible and how historically and Scientifically accurate it is long before people discovered what it says Sometimes my ingenuity is Stupendous🥲I dont know Also im 17 failing math, so i wont pretend i know what you said in the math, but i read the conclusion and made my answer based on that

[@juancruzlives]

top tier comment

[@koifish528]

agreed

[@saintanthonyofpadua290]

This argument is called the “Presupposition argument of God” or the “transcendental argument of God”

[@jaysong.2363]

Everything that exists are creations, and if there's a creation there's a creator. The computer cannot create itself to itself.

[@f_f_f_8142]

If everything is a creation who created God?

[@ChromeMan04]

@@f_f_f_8142god is an uncaused cause

[@SpiritBladeFox]

@@f_f_f_8142 We are god (conscious aware beings), god isn’t like how the Bible says. God is real

[@SpiritBladeFox]

@@ChromeMan04you’re right God is eternal and omnipresent

[@jaysong.2363]

@@f_f_f_8142 God has no beginning and no ending, he is not affected by time, space and matter. Just like zero, there is no one before him. to have a number and a proper arrangement for creation. We have an infinite supreme creator which is called God.

[@pepper3244]

why does math have to "control" anything? it's simply a way to describe what happens.

[@user-fb3hd5lb5w]

It does describe what happens, but it describes what our human minds can't fathom or comprehend by rules we didn't make

[@FireArch1024]

@@user-fb3hd5lb5w thats not true, math is exactly about inventing rules and proving truths (Theorem and propositions) about objects we define using those rules (mathematical objets like numbers, functions, matrixes...). If we find something in the natural world that is similar in some sense to those objetcs we invent, we can apply those rules to the natural world too.

[@user-fb3hd5lb5w]

​@@FireArch1024 The things we're discovering we didn't invent. We write out a formula for something, but we didn't make the formula, that's merely just our way of explaining what we found, and we still don't even realize what it really means. The rules of math always stay the same, we didn't make them, because if we tried to change them math wouldn't work. The rules and formulas were already there, we just discovered them and learned how to use them.

[@FireArch1024]

​@@user-fb3hd5lb5w If you put an example of what you call formula and why "it was always there" I could explain better, but take for example (a+b)²=a²+b²+2ab. That formula is true for real numbers (that apply to measuring physical quantities). But if you work in 2mod, you would write (a²+b²)=a²+b², so whether a formula is true depends on the rules/definitions you make. There are many math branches that have very little application to the real world and their objects of study are completely useless, they are just fun and challenging areas of math (knot theory for example, which is the math area I study). Sometimes the math techniques developed inside these theories are used to prove important truths in other areas though.

[@scazab6408]

No, as you can see math is a language that only a non-existent mf can understand

[@kingvax064]

I was gonna make a long comment regarding the fallacies but many people already did that. I just wanna point out that it seems as like the author of this video has just experienced a completly normal fascination with math and the mandelbrot set, and he attributed it to his beliefs.

[@hyperblueeonbeta]

If you are going to call out this video then I will call out your claim (that's the way I do things). First I've been scrolling down a while and have only seen one comment against this video other than yours. Second this entire video is using math to prove his beliefs so thank you for verifying that I guess. Third the Mandelbrot set is an example of proving (infinite) fractals and how we have discovered them. The Mandelbrot set already existed before we discovered it, it is like a tree falling in the woods, it still makes a sound even if no one is around to hear it.

[@Naturemaxxer_]

research axiom theory, fundamental logic, and incompleteness theorem of math, and then you will realize that math is invented at its core and the arguments in this video are totally wrong @@hyperblueeonbeta

[@TragicGFuel]

@@hyperblueeonbeta By that logic the code behind procedural terrain generation existed, and notch just discovered it? So Minecraft is a creation of "gOd"? Discovering something abstract and inventing it, are very close, dare I say, impossible to distinguish!

[@brunnomenxa]

​@@hyperblueeonbeta, I'm seeing a lot of comments disagreeing and I'm relieved about that, because a lot of misconceptions are being spread by someone who clearly doesn't have the expertise to deal with math concepts, and there are people who are there to point out these errors. Complex things arise from a system of simple rules. Conway's Game of Life is a perfect example of this. The simple rules he dictated for the game are not intended to create specific things, but many things were created obeying this system of rules, and they exist because they respect them and not because they already exist. Things that do not exist, but can exist, fall into the realm of possibility and not of existence. I can invent a machine that stamps sheets while doing flips on mondays, but that doesn't exist if it hasn't been created yet, it's just possible.

[@brunnomenxa]

​@@hyperblueeonbeta, furthermore, the Mandelbrot set is just a fractal. Newton's fractal was born before we could draw cool graphs and know what fractals were like. But we had an idea of ​​what they are because fractals are merely the product of recursive mathematics and repeated patterns.

[@rokaq5163]

Bro learned about fractals and thought he had everything figured out.

[@iilugs]

"Our universe is finite" - source?

[@Ben94729]

Big Bang, something that has a beginning cannot be infinite, so the source is common sense. For the universe to be infinite then the universe should be eternal, but because it is not and this can be proven by science and laws of nature, it has a beginning. That is why Albert Einstein left pantheism when he could not deal with the fact that the universe has a beginning. The causation law says that everything that has a beginning has a cause, in this case God the "uncaused cause" caused the universe to exist.

[@my_Lord_please_note_that]

Math doesn't CONTROL everything, as it was stated in the video, it DESCRIBES, and not even everything, only phisical properties of objects. This is because math is only in our minds, so it can't control anything, but we can describe something with math

[@nalimlattarai2873]

@@athletico3548L

[@Aygeu]

If you take it literally, math does actually control everything. At a certain level, every function of everything in the universe could be described as a near infinite series of mathematical equations. Even the individual cells within your own body could be described using equations.

[@albedougnut]

@@athletico3548 Math by its very nature requires a mind to exist. You seem to be conflating mathematics with physics. Mathematics is simply one of the ways that humans interpret physics.

[@albedougnut]

@@Aygeu Every cell in the body could be described using words, if we wanted to. Does that mean that words control everything, or does it mean that we use words to describe what already exists?

[@Aygeu]

@@albedougnut I don’t think you’re understanding my comment. Literally every individual movement, transfer of information, chemical reaction, LITERALLY ANYTHING, is at it’s most basic level a bunch of equations. You can describe something with words but that doesn’t change anything about it no matter how horribly you were to describe it. If you try to define an object’s motion with 1000 equations and even one of them is wrong, you are incorrect and it is not undergoing the same motion.

[@Logaddi]

Hands down, the best math propaganda I've ever seen.

[@BoberKurwa_69]

True💀

[@Freak0naleash]

Fr I'm using it as motivation to study for my math exam

[@Kronosreturn]

Yeah it’s good for math thou

[@canaryellow.]

Thought this was god propaganda

[@qazwsxedcrfvtgb8877]

He just disproved him self at 2:05

[@user-wh5sf4nv1h]

me getting goosebumps when he says "and we have just described GOD"

[@doctorsalt9051]

As a physics major, I really hope this is satire for your sake

[@koopa5504]

Look at the views.. the account. Billions of people like this are actually for real in this world... and it's 2024. Scary.

[@spicymeatballs2thespicening]

Math is a system we created that deals with values on a theoretical level, to describe how the universe works. This is like saying human language is proof of god, because it's not physical, and it can describe infinite situations. It's not like humans are omniscient just because we created vocabulary that is capable of describing the entire universe.

[@justanormalyoutubeuser3868]

Everything he said about maths also applies to games like Go. There an infinity of possible games, so is Go supernatural? Is the Chinese guy who invented Go gods?

[@ttyblender1580]

@@scatmanbutwithanc684 please explain the leaps in logic... everything seems logically correct to me

[@Jeffersonjeffing]

god is infinite situations. the universe is infinite situations, math is infinite situations. All correlate.

[@ttyblender1580]

@@Jeffersonjeffing my pen can be in infinite situations, is it god?

[@Jeffersonjeffing]

@@ttyblender1580 god invented it. Its made of atoms isnt it.

[@SaicomantisJ]

A logical fallacy used here is that math "contains information". Math is a tool, not a library of information. There are some constants in the world like π or the speed of light that can be described by using math. If there is a clue that a higher consciousness exists, that would be the fact that these constants hold their particular values instead of different ones. Also the Mandelbrot set is an example of fractal geometry that emerges by using math (a man made tool to describe the natural world) and plotting it in the complex plane (another man-made tool). This is just an example of the concept of emergence, which roughly means order is created by chaos.

[@odilegagne-roy1141]

order is created by chaos 🙌

[@hworld375]

I think the point here is that the author starts from the idea “science explains everything,” and thus it turns out that mathematics = God, because she explains everything exactly like God, but for atheists

[@raindropsfell269]

Well considering the fact that his argument for a higher consciousness relies on the horrible assumption that math is a library of information?

[@adamfrank1182]

Math contains information buddy. It’s like a code, you never took a coding class. I can tell

[@SaicomantisJ]

@@adamfrank1182 I have a Bachelor degree in Computer Science, "buddy".

[@4U70_DeadAuto]

hate from the phillipines because i dont wanna even get started on everything

[@4U70_DeadAuto]

as a catholic, and a math nerd, I can confirm this aint prove anything

[@javid62663]

The whole argument relies on a serious misunderstanding about what math is and does.

[@shawnavadeiir-jr3jd]

Its a fundamental difference in philosophy between the two of you, not him being misunderstood about what math is. He dose a great job explaining the difference between nominalist and realist philosophy in other vedios of his, and I definitely think that this vedio works best with that prior understanding. Which is why I wish he had included his nominalist vs realist explanation in this vedio, this cpmmemt section would look way diffrent if he did

[@infinitebutter7948]

same guy that made the first reply, just swapped from alt to main for reasons not pertaining to this discussion kzbin.info/www/bejne/kIevdHp5h8tqj7csi=FWrI7fUWSY7oMLp1 even though it's on a different subject, he explains the philosophy that goes into his argument in this vedio

[@iamanentppersonalitytype3184]

Prove it instead of just stating some random conjecture without any proof

[@8-bitpersona16]

Okay, then what is math and what does it do?

[@javid62663]

@@8-bitpersona16 Math describes the process of making rigorous conclusions from a set of assumptions. Math does not contain infinite numbers nor proves their existence. Existence of infinite numbers is just an assumption that often is made.

[@Dragonaiis]

Math isn’t an inherent property within physics. It’s merely our human conceptual understanding of physics. It’s the way that we quantify physics based on our own basis of knowledge.

[@LetsDOART]

How do you quantify infinity?

[@g_g...]

​@@LetsDOARTinfinity is simply a concept we determine by a never ending result of something, or a seemingly never-ending result. The fact that you see infinity as this strange and mysterious concept shows how little you know of math. Infinity is not a complicated concept at all. In fact, it's one of the easier ones.

[@Dragonaiis]

@@LetsDOART To ask for a quantity means to ask “how much”. Therefore infinity is quantified as infinity. Just as 4 is quantified as 4. Or pi is quantified as pi Infinity is conceptual. The number 4 is conceptual. Pi is conceptual. All math is a concept. Attempting to “quantify” infinity as anything more than its mathematical definition (it being infinite) won’t yield any results

[@melihtopcu97]

I think this is a truism. No one claimed otherwise. Everyone knows, that math is an abstraction to describe reality. But due to the fact, that we use this tool to remodel what we see around us, it is our current understanding of it, and not entirely flawless. Some of which seems to fit into this universe, other things don't. We have an approximation on how close we are to describing reality with math, by its application and coherence/consistency. Good example, Newtons laws apply up until a certain threshold of size. They are obviously useful to describe a good chunk of physical interactions, but not flawless. By refining those unknowns, we come closer and closer to objective reality.

[@nielsholmlassen8275]

​@@LetsDOARTsimple we invented something called a limit to do just that

[@quickkennedy3226]

The best part about this video is he makes a tierlist on arguments for god and lists this as #1

[@bulb9970]

I don't want to see the arguments worse than this one 💀

[@plutothetutor1660]

Unconvincing, for example with the Mandelbrot set, it's subjectively interesting to us as humans but it's doesn't imply a creator. A hyper-intelligent alien civilization might find the Mandelbrot set remarkably boring. This is coming from a mathematics student by the way.

[@electric1917]

i'll just say something: "just because something is beyond our comprehension, it doesn't make it divine, just worth studying"

[@tox3417]

Randomness can not create a design. Both are literally the opposite of eachother

[@naizy]

you cant prove or disprove god its like me saying im harry potter you cant disprove or prove i am

[@adamus4943]

@@tox3417 elaborate

[@jeffbagelhole6303]

@@tox3417 the mandlebrot shown in this video literally shows how randomness can appear to be designed, go read some madlebrot books and look into chaos theory and you imght have a better undrstanding on the mathematics behind this. I myself am an agnostic but just dont think your comment has much merit to it.

[@merkurio4132]

Randomness can create perceived order. For example, if every atom in the universe changed to a random location every second for an infinite amount of time, eventually our universe would be created.

[@Leo-nt2jd]

thought bro was gonna conclude that mandelbrot is god

[@playfulmathematician5928]

hey we could start a religion out of that, mandelbrotism

[@snowmeows3342]

@@playfulmathematician5928 Welcome to the cult "playfulmathematician"... We have all of the answers. There is no need to worry. Trust Mandelbrot. Trust the fractal. You must begin the initiation.

[@DenimInfluenza]

⁠@@playfulmathematician5928i'll lay down some ground rules 1. you CAN NOT look at the mandelbrot set or any other math and think "this was created by god" BECAUSE THAT GOES AGAINST THE POINT OF MANDELBROTISM 2. mandelbrot is a famous mathmatician and created a famous piece of math, so he must have created math, which is the "language of the universe", and language is required for communocation which causes civilization and when you think of it the universe is kind of like a giant continent of the countries/galaxies which has provinces/states/solar systems of cities/towns/villages/planets, with the stars acting like state/province capitals and centers of galaxies being nation capitals

[@BansheeAirsoft_]

Mandelbrot didn’t create the Mandelbrot set He just “figured it out”

[@politebadger5049]

@@playfulmathematician5928no don't

[@BruceWayne-l8y]

How can you say the universe is finite? You don't know that, we don't know that? - 1.57

[@samuellang4403]

This prove a god. Not a certain religion though.

[@user-yu2sq2pv2o]

Id argue logic and morality proves Christianity. I mean Jesus, just some random carpenter, has been the most popular Man on earth for about 2000 years. Over half the population believes He is the messiah (Islam and Christianity combined according to secular sources). Christianity is also the only religion to not tell you to go do this or that to get God, the creator of the universe, to notice you and like you, but rather that your just an insignificant human who God already knows everything about and could do nothing new to God. All you have to do is tell God you want to have a relationship with Him and you want to work with Him

[@eggbort3567]

Humans can't create infinities, but we *can* create sets of rules that create infinite possibilities. Math, and the components of it that created the mandelbrot set, are sets of rules that happened to be accidentally put together in a way that forms the mandelbrot set. Sometimes, when coding, I accidentally create a program that could theoretically create infinite information, in an infinite computer. Does this mean I'm god? No. It means I've incorrectly coded a recursive function, and I'm going to fail the exam coming up.

[@rumpleforeskin5233]

WRONG

[@behindmatt4943]

did you pass

[@Kartaltetaa]

i think you are wrong in this because in the video it says that the math itself is infinite, and creates infinite possibilities. You are talking about creating something finite that creates infinite possibilities. Not the same thing, there is actually a big difference and that may be the gods difference. I still dont know what to believe tho😊

[@shorts.com-vn7du]

u would not been able to create infinite information on a computer without binary math my man

[@bodtube]

lol

[@Nwa_Igbo]

There are atheists: "God does not exist! There are theists: "God exists!" And then there's this guy: "God is math"

[@adamus4943]

and math is a concept we invented to help explain the world around us. the difference is we can observe that math applies to the real world because it's all LITERALLY a description of physical phenomena, but god is still just an abstract concept made up to control medieval peasants

[@DLCguy]

Pythagoras?

[@sree-pathy]

Prolly​@@DLCguy

[@naizy]

you cant prove or disprove god its like me saying im harry potter you cant disprove or prove i am

[@sree-pathy]

@@naizy bro u got a point But probably you've misunderstood the video

[@dingo4530]

4:30 I was waiting for an argument but all I got was an appeal to common sense and the assertion that "math controls the universe"

[@secondbeamship]

I just felt my brain get rotted from this lack of logic.

[@rishiy.8996]

the amount of leaps in assumptions and fallacies in this are amazing.

[@MobileTaskForceE11]

Bro literally just skipped over the fact that we just made math up lmao, didn't even explain why.

[@rh_BOSS]

This dude had an epiphany just looking at the Mandelbrot set. If he knew about incompleteness and undefinability theorems, his head would've exploded.

[@senlim8461]

"every possible book and a complete copy of our universe is encoded in math" really sounds like something you'd hear from someone who is specifically appealing to people who have absolutely no knowledge on the subject matter. like news sites trying to explain high level physics. it works on a basic level but you need to be able to provide more detail to convince people who actually understand the subject matter

[@eVCANN]

@@senlim8461yeah, that honestly makes no sense. By that logic, every book that will ever exist is “encoded” (what does he think that means?) into language.

[@NeuraCraft]

For real

[@carnageteam7602]

Mathematicians are secretly philosophers Since they both explain logic one just does it with numbers, and the other one does it with words

[@lapinus]

well I mean mathematics started as a branch of philosophy, basically

[@jakeroyle3127]

Are the words "God isn't real"

[@carnageteam7602]

@@jakeroyle3127 I’m atheist so I’d agree I just really wanted to make the comparison to math and philosophy

[@sheesh9050]

math IS philosophy

[@roopaligupta9907]

yea but it does not mean it cares about us or made heven or hell it might not even care about us

[@Tarkioff]

I dont need any proofs to believe that god is real, because i believe in him

[@toxicbunny1013]

The problem with this is your argument is relying on the fact that you need to understand something to create it, which is wrong. humans created fire before they understood it. we created math, as we discover new things we add to math, math is something that we use to help us understand and describe the universe it's not like math already existed. Also, infinite is a concept, it does not exist in our universe because we made it up, that site that lets you zoom in on the Mandelbrot set is just a tool to help us visualize our own concept that we made up to help describe the things in math we don't understand yet.

[@oktnbok]

those were some leaps in logic. math is not a physical thing which is the reason why it doesn't need physical space. it also doesn't control the universe, it describes it. the physical properties we use are completely made up. we just defined what a force or a potential is, it's not something that was revealed to us. the reason math is so complex now is because over a long period of time a whole bunch of people found new ways to explain the universe.

[@tox3417]

I'm pretty sure if you go back to the start of the video that no matter what language you study math with it will always be infinite. Even if it's in letters. We only chose numbers because it's easier for us to study. Mandelbrot is something that is exactly the opposite of randomness. You can't have an infinite set of designed figure and claim it came from randomness. You gotta understand that it is Infinitely desgined and that will make it impossible to ever be made up from randomness. For example About Infinites: If a car moved 100 mile per hour and each mile it passed the speed will be cut in half becoming 50 miles per hour, And it just continues doing so to a point where it starts to barley even move and be closer to staying still than it is to moving fast.

[@naizy]

you cant prove or disprove god its like me saying im harry potter you cant disprove or prove i am

[@dylan5090]

@@deejaythedeejay This statement is flawed. It suggests that any thing which cannot be disproven is intrinsically true. This holds up under deductive reasoning, but falls apart when it is not supported by any evidence or observation to be broken down into fundamental parts. Your argument is saying that since you cannot disprove that universe came from a singularity, it must be true, being contrary to your statement. As I said, this logic is sound given any physical evidence, but can not be used to form postulates. I hope this makes sense. Also please capitalize.

[@Noobelix]

@@deejaythedeejay thats not how formal logic works like at all

[@smolltaco5667]

​@@naizyexcept i can, because harry potter is a fictional character written for a book, just like god

[@BillyCobbOfficial]

Isn’t saying that the Mandal BR Set having infinite patterns being proof of a supernatural creator no different than saying putting two mirrors against each other to create an infinite void proof of a supernatural creator? Finding patterns in the natural formations of the universe adds to the mystery yes, but I’d hardly consider that proof of otherworldly influence.

[@PeachDragon_]

It's far easier to argue in favor of god using human imagination and consciousness than math

[@ghoulbuster1]

Mirrors aren't infinite, eventually the light gets absorbed into the mirror.

[@BillyCobbOfficial]

@@ghoulbuster1 semantics

[@LeLe-pm2pr]

@@ghoulbuster1 consider two hypoethetically perfectly aligned perfect mirrors with photons bouncing on a straight path between them

[@urielndiaz]

@@LeLe-pm2pr thats still a hypothetical, not whats actually in the video being clearly demonstrated.

[@horseshoe804]

I thought I'd see that athiest claim 'bigbang occurred out of nowhere' being disproved through complex probability equations, thus proving God. but guess not

[@GradientYoutube]

Didn’t Homer Simpson prove that god wasn’t real

[@surr3al756]

I am not an atheist, but I am a nerd and I am going to disprove your claim in a very simple way, with upmost respect, of course. There are three problems with this argument: one is that you fail to explain why math is infinite, two is that you assume that math can only be contained by a mind, and three is that you say that God must know all truths. You don't say why math is infinite, yet it does have a reason, and that reason is because of the parameters we created for math. The Mandelbrot Set is not infinite because someone else made it that way and we just so happened to discover it, it is infinite because when we made the parameters for math, it was created, simply because of how numbers and equations work, and then we found a method to get to it, and visualize it. Saying that this Mandelbrot set has to be contained by a mind is incorrect because math is not contained by anything, so it can be infinite because it has no container. The only things we actually can contain in our minds are the rules for math, but all the results of those can not, and are not, contained. What the rules have created, we discover later, and then contain in our minds, or some other method of recording. The mind can not actually contain math. Because of this, God's mind can not contain the Mandelbrot Set, nor does God's mind have to contain the Mandelbrot Set for the Mandelbrot Set to exist. Finally, assuming God knows all truths simply because God's mind is able to contain math, which is the truth of the universe, is entirely without support. Math is not a truth by itself, it is a tool used to explain and prove other things to be true. Even if it were to be a truth, it would be entirely unrelated to any social or historical truths, even if you consider the fact that math can explain what happens in our universe. Therefore, knowing math does not connect to knowing anything else but math. What you have claimed is not a concrete fact, a theory, or even a hypothesis. It's a conspiracy. Don't take that as an insult, it really is just what your argument is. And conspiracies have no foundation other than the fact someone imagined it in their head, which scientifically speaking, is not good enough to be taken seriously. Such as every other claim of God's existence is. There is no shame in believing in God, but incorrectly using science to prove God's existence is incorrect, unless in the future science shows us that God exists. Religion is nothing more than faith, as it stands now.

[@lorieclark2556]

You said your not an atheist and you had a very intellectual argument so what makes you believe in God if your a Christian?

[@surr3al756]

@@lorieclark2556 Oh, I don't believe in god. As of now, I consider myself Buddhist, which does not have a god in its religion. Even so, I am not a devout Buddhist, it's just a general belief, but it's strong enough not to call myself an atheist. I can see why you thought I was Christian though, however I just wanted to say I wasn't coming at this from an atheistic viewpoint because letting people know that can make them feel more comfortable reading and believing what I say, knowing that I do not deny their beliefs. And I don't really mind other people believing in God, it's just not for me. At the end of the day, it's a faith, not objective truth, and I hate when people treat it as anything more than an objectively blind guess, hence the creation of my comment.

[@lorieclark2556]

@@surr3al756 Might be true ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I think it is

[@surr3al756]

@@lorieclark2556 I respect you still showing uncertainty, and your belief as a whole. Some people say it with absolute certainty, that's not right to me.

[@NotBlazerMC]

My brain can't contain this essay

[@MissiFull]

I would say math is discovered and invented. We invent the notation (numbers, symbols), but we discover the patterns (aurial proportion, PI, prime numbers)

[@Marco_Lucca]

Exactly!

[@Nguyenzander]

yeah but math itself doesn't need the symbols, it just is. (and don't say humans invented numbers, that's just silly)

[@latetry8593]

@@Nguyenzander If humans ceased to exist numbers would to. As the idea of numbers were constructed by the human brain. Numbers on earth atleast.

[@KingArthurWs]

@@latetry8593 This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Mathematics is not an invention of us, but rather an observation of what already exists in the universe.

[@latetry8593]

@@KingArthurWs Based on that. Everything we humans have observed has been both invented and discovered. As we perceive things in our way. Like gravity. The fundamentals of it existed before human society did but the concept gravity only exist because of the human mind.

[@jackthemmm]

This is the worst argument trying to debunk atheism ever.

[@auronalimi1590]

No.

[@justacat2]

??

[@nostromza3433]

@@auronalimi1590 yes

[@Hydraulic_Milk13131]

Bro at the start of the video he said math is supernatural. Math cant make my cookie turm into 2 cookies, and until it can, im atheist

[@bacon_warrior5097]

energy cant be created neither destroyed, if ur cookie turned into 2 cookies that would break that law

[@Mr._Anderpson]

@@bacon_warrior5097 So much for the story of multiplying loaves of bread & fish, eh?

[@L2-L2]

@@Mr._Anderpson you forgot who multiplied the loaves of bread and fish huh?

[@Mr._Anderpson]

@@L2-L2 It was Jeff, the God of Biscuits, wasn't it?

[@4U70_DeadAuto]

i hear an argument coming, i have my popcorn, and my calculator, and a cross

[@Chris-qo4rt]

So basically what it comes down to is "math is complex, god is complex therefore god exists"

[@brandonnunez5401]

hes saying that God created math. Math is everywhere and it is everything therefore God created "everything and is everything. However since God is outside of human comprehension such as math is sometimes out of human comprehension, we cannot fully understand how God came to be or how God is but we know God has to exist.

[@funnymark5494]

@@brandonnunez5401 but that whole argument falls apart if god didnt create math, just because something makes sense doesnt mean that its supernatural, the color blue will always be the color blue, thats just something thats true, nobody designed the color blue to be the color blue, its just something that is either true or false, maths is the exact same but on a more complicated scale surely.

[@michael-r4k]

Yes, someone did design the color blue to look the way it does. His name is Jesus Christ.@@funnymark5494

[@lurven666]

​@@brandonnunez5401 If math is everything, its also that a grasshopper is the fact that god exist and therefore a grasshopper is everything aswell as the fact that god doesn't exist. If he is everything, he is surely the fact that he doesn't and can't exist too. Which is just as little proof as the counter argument. Also I find it shocking that people think infinity and everything is even remotely close to equivalent. Also, if there practically exist a god that created our milkyway, I bet my soul in hell that he is just as clueless about whatever created him.

[@1err3]

@@lurven666 At some point something has to exist outside of the realm of creation to create said collection. you logically at some point need to come to a creator.

[@zipporaid7]

[ Discrete mathematics has entered the chat ] By the way, the Mandelbrot Set visualization does, in fact, contain evidence of intelligent design. The reason for this is because it was made by computer scientists. I hope this helps.

[@trento6842]

It already existed but was found

[@jaydenraynor4679]

It wasn't created by computer scientists, however it _was_ created by sets of rules that were also invented by humans, so your argument still stands.

[@EnderHedge]

It dose not, there is a God read the Bible

[@KoCat2867]

It was not made by computer scientists. It started existing when the universe started existing, and all computer scientists did was find out that it exists.

[@IGNSanity]

@@EnderHedge you just completely ignored the argument and your rebuttal was a statement with no backing

[@cewla3348]

your argument for pi is just blatantly wrong. Years ago, people discovered that the ratio for a circle's radius to it's circumference is ~3, and our guesses kept on getting better as time goes on - eventually, we figured out that it goes on forever. But, like, this is just saying "we observed a number that goes on forever".

[@GabrielCGA]

Prople flooding this comment section with insults even though it does nothing: 🤡 People who respect others: 🗿

[@almondgust]

how did you jump from "math is infinitely complex" to "math must be created by god" dawg

[@Unknown_Planet]

Cuz somehow infinite amount of information cannot be here, in possibly infinite Universe. Hmm, great "argument" for infinite Universe.

[@zerinkhan3332]

watch the vdo again

[@Unknown_Planet]

@@zerinkhan3332 No need to rewatch, there is little to no reason for that.

[@Teo97b]

@@Unknown_Planet the information isn't infinite, there's just nothing to stop it from *potentially* become infinite. There's a difference.

[@Unknown_Planet]

@@Teo97b Yeah, that's right. It's even not actual mathematics, it's just an unstoppable list of 0's and 1's.

[@LexiePersonForever]

It’s also fun to point out that ancient Greeks used math to attempt to know the divine. The reason why they (especially pythagoreans) studied it so intensely was they believed they could know God thru math

[@markstein2845]

The mathematician Pytagoras was believed to be related to God Apollo.

[@user-vl1tb1xx2d]

"God" you mean the ancient greek gods lol.

[@lilpullout]

the ancient greeks didnt have one "god" so your comment falls apart

[@LexiePersonForever]

@@lilpullout the cool thing about those cult religions was they were usually monistic, so they had the belief that all gods were a face of the one, ultimate god. it was often the "secret" revealed to those initiated. it's also why so many were sort of combined in worship, or have different variations that were worshiped in different areas. but it's not my idea, that's literally the entire point of pythagoreanism. it's really well-known, they're the cult that didn't eat beans.

[@koopa5504]

@@LexiePersonForever You guys inhale such immense amounts of copium trying to go back to your little one god story.. I can smell the bullshit through my screen.

[@chrisangel6833]

4:24 bro what is this man yapping about

[@BlueBarry-oi15LoL]

Math does not control the universe. It’s used as a tool to figure out how things in the universe work. Mathematics is like a language that can be learned to investigate structures and processes older than time itself. Math is very important, but it doesn’t control how things work. And it certainly doesn’t make it “supernatural”