Proving God exists using Math

This longer video explains the Mandelbrot set in more detail:

Explore the Mandelbrot set yourself:

Join our discord community:

[chewhammer]

math does not control the universe, it describes the universe

[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

[Win]

To me personally, the Mandelbrot set is not designed to be beautiful.

It just exists, and *we* found it beautiful.

[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.

[chikitibomba]

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

[lorenzobarbuto]

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

[naalex]

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.

[PersonCuber]

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

[cloroxbleach]

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

[ezekielburgos]

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

[noire_okay]

fun fact:if you say god is a invisible cow that fly inside earth no one can explain it wrong

[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.

[gedstrom]

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

[piface]

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.

[bandanabhatt]

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.

[crunkdaconqueror]

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

[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.

[greeny]

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

[Cadncee]

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

[alexsenpai]

bro thought he was cooking but the oven was off