Proof of God 2: Sleeping Through Math Class

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Law of Non-contradiction says that anything (A) is itself (A) and thus, for anything

 A = A.

If you rename A, so that it has a nametag which says, “Hello, my name is Perfecto Sanchez“, this does not change the fact that A = A, because when A = Perfecto Sanchez, what you are saying is Perfecto Sanchez = Perfecto Sanchez, which is really just another way of saying A = A. There’s no trick here. It really is that easy.

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

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

When you are asking for mathematical proofs for the existence of God, what you are saying is, by definition, God is someone that exists, and thus, God=real? Can God’s existence be proven with 100% mathematical certainty?

Yes. Yes it can.

Saint Anselm of Canterbury did that like a thousand years ago. You’re welcome. So, I guess I’ll see you in church. If that girl from Alabama is there, don’t sit near her. She’ll just be playing Candy Crush on her i-phone.

Join me next time as we get Ontological, and remember, #JesusLovesYou

This entry was posted in atheism, Philosophy and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

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

  1. Saint Anselm of Canterbury did that like a thousand years ago.

    Anselm’s ontological argument wasn’t even considered a 100% certain mathematical deduction by other Christians in his own time, let alone by non-believers today. While I agree that it’s a bit disingenuous for someone to ask for such an incontrovertible proof, it’s even worse to pretend that you have one.


    • Greetings BP,
      I didn’t mean to say that it is a MATHEMATICAL proof, but that it is absolutely certain. Maybe it will make sense when I present it in the next post- Proof of God 3. Enjoy that, and thanks for your comments and questions.


  2. Mel Wild says:

    “We can be absolutely sure that 2 + 2 = 4, not because of science, nor because of smart people doing smart things in smart books or on smart TV shows (if such a thing exists) but merely because of the definition of the terms.”

    I had an atheist/humanist tell me that we can’t be certain that 2 + 2 = 4 in all cases, considering quantum mechanics. This comment was so devoid of coherence that, like you said about the person doesn’t think he exists, there’s no point in answering such imbecility.


  3. Way says:

    “I can imagine God, therefore he exists” pretty much sums up the evidence you have for your particular brand of god. Before intellectually challenged “theologians” that manage to contradict themselves were even born, you had actual philosophers that made it plainly clear the god you speak of is actually missing from a logical Universe.

    So… here’s another proof (logical) that your god does not exist:
    1. If God exists, he is perfect
    2. If God exists, he created the Universe
    3. Any creation of a perfect being is necessarily perfect
    4. The Universe is not perfect
    5. From 3 & 4 it results that either:
    – God is not perfect,
    – he did not create the Universe
    – or… he doesn’t exist


    • Greetings WAY!
      Excuse me, I’m going to roll my eyes right at the start before I even begin to answer just to get it out of the way- uh, er… get it taken care of.
      [rolls my eyes]
      OK, let’s take a look at your smug little attempt at taking me down a peg.
      1. No one can imagine God. You have misunderstood the point. Either go back and read it again for comprehension, or ask some clarifying questions. What you have begun with is a weak straw man.
      2. You show your ignorance of history here. Philosophy was raised in the church after being born among the Jews and colored by the Greeks. Atheist “philosophers” are self contradictory Johnny-Come-Lately’s who plagiarize and pretend to be inventing something new, when in fact many of their ideas can be found in the works of Shakespeare, in the mouths of villains or fools. Also, they do no better than your argument here which, as you will see, accomplishes something very different than you had hoped it would.
      3. Your “logical proof” fails because it is built on a faulty understanding of perfection, and a faulty understanding of God.
      4. Also, your proof ends with several possibilities, when you presented it as “made it plainly clear the god you speak of is actually missing from a logical Universe.” Yet, what you call making it plainly clear that God is absent can do no better than “– or… he doesn’t exist.” Not exactly air tight. This the best you got? Option one, option two… OR, maybe, if all else fails, perhaps God doesn’t exist? IS this the certainly of atheist philosophy? Shall I set fire to my Bible now, or should I wait for a sacred holiday?
      5. If you had read the first couple of pages of the Bible you would know the universe was made perfect. God actually makes a point of saying so several times in the VERY FIRST CHAPTER of the Bible. In most Bibles, you wouldn’t even have to turn a single page to read this whole section. It will all be on the first page.

      But it is clear that your #4 is true- the universe is not perfect. SO what happened? Well, to get to this part of the Bible, you would probably have to turn a page. Maybe even TWO pages. So, that is a lot of reading. I’ll sum it up for you:
      1. People can make choices.
      2. Some of the possible choices are bad.
      3. It is impossible to make a creature with free will which is not able to choose a bad choice.
      4. People choose to do bad things.
      5. Thus, the universe is not perfect.

      But it’s actually a step worse for Atheism. Because:
      1. Given: The universe is not perfect.
      2. “Perfect” means nothing unless there is an absolute standard against which something can be compared.
      3. Only God can be that standard and communicate it to us.
      therefore- the fact that you identify the universe as imperfect means your worldview assumes the existence of God.
      Your argument above destroys and rejects atheism.

      All of this and more is explained in the world of CS Lewis. I recommend you begin with Mere Christianity and then Miracles.

      And thanks for your comments.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s