Absolute Proof God Exists

Post on a forum by a novelator:

If you really want absolute proof that God exists, the proof has been sitting there in your pretty little head since you first discovered two spoonfuls of Mommy’s pudding are better than one.


Mathematics is a universal language that bridges all other languages here on this planet. Everything we know and do here is predicated on our understanding of math. And we’re born with this basic knowledge that one piece of candy plus one piece of candy equals more than just one piece of candy.

Mathematics is the only language everyone on this planet speaks. The workings of the entire Universe, indeed, even down to the cells of your body, can be explained, proven or disproved, by math. All our modern conveniences–math. Even to the earliest recorded time of Man’s existence, Man did not exist without math–think seasons. Without math, none of us survive.

So, then you have to ask yourself who created Mathematics, this universal language? Why are we all born knowing it, innately, no one tells us, we just know, instinctively? And then, if you’re the least bit honest with yourself or others, if you have that kind of courage, you have to admit that, at a minimum, there being this mathematical underpinning to the entire Universe, even a set of finite rules that make up a foundation, the base foundation of all Existence, there must also be a Mind behind it all.

God is a mathematical certainty, if you dare, because God made math and gave it to us all.

And if not God, who? Who created Mathematics and instilled it inside of us all?


17 thoughts on “Absolute Proof God Exists

    • Hi,
      I’m interested in your thoughts as I also have written a blog post, “Mathematics and God”. ( http://struth-his-or-yours.blogspot.com/2008/11/mathematics-and-god.html ) What I have done is taken certain statements of a research mathematician on the nature of maths to extrapolate them into an argument for the existence of God. One thing I might say is: Maths is, to my understanding, a very concise abbreviated form of logic. It is logic, that math represents, that is fundamentally basic. In the words of Leland McInnes: “Maths is the art of
      abstraction.” So if you think of logic as properly basic and universal have a look at this: (John 1:1) In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. (John 1:2) The same was in the beginning with God. (John 1:3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

  1. Sorry. Much as I love mathematics, I cannot buy this argument.

    First, it rests on several false premises.

    For example “The workings of the entire Universe, indeed, even down to the cells of your body, can be explained, proven or disproved, by math.” Well, how do you know that? There are lots of things we don’t know about the universe, so a blanket statement like that is impossible to verify. Moreover, many scientific discoveries, especially in biology, were made without mathematics.

    Another example. The author states that mathematics is a set of finite rules that “make up . . . the base foundation of all Existence . . . .” Not so. Mathematics is much more than a set of finite rules; various mathematics contradict each other (e.g. Euclidean vs non-Euclidean geometry). And Godel showed that no system of mathematics can be both consistent and complete.

    Second, the argument contains a classic non-sequitur: “You have to ask yourself who created Mathematics . . . .” No, you don’t have to ask that at all. The fundamental question addressed in any course on the philosophy of mathematics is to what extent is mathematics a human invention, like language.

    I could go on, but I don’t want to discourage the author, who clearly likes mathematics and philosophy. That is a precious gift. So keep up the speculations, dear author, but be ready to look for weaknesses in your own arguments.

    all the best


    • Thanks for your comment! However, as soon as the fundamental 1+1= 2 can be changed by you or me or someone else, let me know.

      Every variation in Mathematics–e.g. Euclidean vs non-Euclidean geometry–is just that, a man-made variation, a human invention if you will, that still shares the same building block, that springs from the same simple foundation. Every single one. One rock plus one rock has always equaled two rocks–no one on this planet has changed that, nor can they. They can change the labels on the numbers–different languages, different symbols–they can shape new theories to be proven or disproved later, or change methods of computing, etc., but no one of us has the ability to change the very base 1+1=2.

      I agree, however, that you don’t have to ask yourself who created Mathematics. You don’t have to ask who did or didn’t do a damn thing in this Universe. That’s the nature of free will.

      • Hi 8411c:
        As I understand it, you believe that God created some basic mathematics (the natural numbers and simple arithmetic) and that we humans have used this as a foundation for our mathematical inventions (geometry, algebra, calculus and the rest). Have I got that right?

        If so, I would argue that your division between the “basic” and the “advanced” is
        appealing, but arbitrary. Why not attribute the whole of mathematics to human ingenuity?

        I’m enjoying this discussion, but I gotta get some work done. I’ll check back in a day or so.




    • A few other things to point out here, my friend–although many, many discoveries were made in biology without the use of math, somewhere, right now, there is a biologist or a scientist, a physicist or even a football coach, recording his or her observations in the Universal language of Mathematics.

      I would go so far as to wager that there is not only a mathematical formula to prove the existence of every specie on Earth, but that every single mechanism or organism or physical body throughout the known and unknown Universe or Universes can be reduced to a mathematical equation. Just because no one on this planet’s bothered to do it, nay, we’ve just scratched the surface of Mathematics really, doesn’t mean the equations are not possible or do not exist.

      Funny how the growth of our body of knowledge as a species seems directly tied to the growth of our knowledge of Mathematics.

    • aharmlessdrudge,

      Can you explain how Godel was able to prove that no “system” of mathematics can be consistent or complete without using the very numbers themselves as a foundation for his computations? And what “system” of mathematics was he referring to–were they all human inventions or imported from some other star system?

      Just wondering here.

      • Aargh! You got me, Jigsaw Press. No, I cannot explain Godel’s proof using the resources of my feeble mind.

        That’ll teach me to shoot off my mouth when I cannot back up my assertions.

        I’ll have to look this up next time I’m in the library.

        Thanks for keeping me on my toes.


  2. aharmlessdrudge,

    Actually, all I’m saying is that the numbers, their existence, forming a simple base that cannot be changed, by anyone, is evidence of a Mind behind Creation. You can call it God or whatever you want, or nothing at all, but the design of the known Universe, the mechanics of it all (what little we know there), suggests something greater behind its beginnings than mere chaos or random occurrence.

    Mathematics, base math, is not a human invention, but something innate inside of us all. A tool given us for our survival. Even a baby understands the concept of more or greater than. How does a nine-month-old child “know” that two cookies are better than one? The child cannot reason this out, can’t articulate the theory, no one’s likely told him about mathematics, yet he knows the concept of more, or greater than, nearly from birth. How? 1+1=2

    So, here we have this innate tool of survival and we built on it, and we continue to build on it to this day. We’re all the way past quantum mechanics and string theory, atoms and neutrinos, but no one imagines an end to what we can know, because everyone who loves numbers knows that what we actually know mathematically doesn’t amount to a neutrino in an ocean. Every generation gives us those mathematicians and scientists that take us just one step further in understanding how the Universe and all the natural processes work, how they interact and intertwine, negative, positive, attract, repel, plus and minus. Dark matter was just recently proven to exist, although most physicists knew it probably did exist, but they couldn’t, they wouldn’t, call it an absolute until the numerous theories were finally condensed to a mathematical equation that worked.

    I often wonder if we won’t eventually come full circle as a species to realize that the proof of this Mind was hiding in plain sight since the first human baby knew without question, without a conscious thought, that two breasts full of mother’s milk are greater than one.

    • “I often wonder if we won’t eventually come full circle as a species to realize that the proof of this Mind was hiding in plain sight”

      You know in the past I have often pondered about the “hiddenness” of God. Now, I realize that if you “can’t see the wood for the trees”, then it’s time to hide the trees! I believe this goes some way to explain things. The scriptures say- “…the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.” Psalm 19:1. The problem is not, as mathematician, philosopher and author Bertrand Russell put it- “a lack of evidence for God”, so much as a suppression of the evidence.
      As some wit once said- “An atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman”. The fact is, any admission of God suddenly will thrust us into the dilemma of dealing with too many questions of morality, like- why do you lie? What are you watching on the internet? Whose husband are you involved with? Why do you pay so little tax? How is it you drove/walked past that toddler injured on the street? Why do you look the other way at so much suffering, deprivation and violence?

      In short it is our unwillingness to face accountability to a higher power. Many intellectual questions about the evidence for God (or lack thereof) appear so honestly to be a barrier to belief, are just so much smokescreen to the real barrier. I’m not saying these questions don’t need answering- they do, and I’m not saying that most of the questions people have aren’t sincere, they are. What I am saying is what Pascal alluded to in the “Pensees”- ” The heart has reasons, that reason never knows” At a sub-conscious level we don’t want to know God exists. At a conscious level we find all these questions and barriers to belief because, at another level we really don’t want to know. That is precisely why being “born again” is (like natural birth) a miracle. It is an intervention, an impregnation of the spirit of grace and truth in the heart of a person who is systemically evil, while on the exterior may be morally good. The scriptures point to this saying “(Jeremiah 17:9) “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”

      • Kerry,

        Thanks for commenting.

        You know what I’ve learned in my life?

        If you live every day, every moment, like God’s watching your every move, you soon find out he is taking a close and personal interest in you. That’s an awesome honor all by itself.

        Now, how many people do you know that really want to piss God off by taking so much as a penny that isn’t theirs? I mean, if you put it like that, most folks back off from whatever they’re doing, like lying or stealing. Few stop to consider that being lazy at their job is theft of company time, as well as the breaking of a contract between the worker and the company.

        I hear people moan all the time about how unfair the company they work for is, and how this company owes them, etc. and so forth, and you know what? They made an agreement with the company to go to work, and if they don’t like their
        agreement, they can negotiate or walk. That’s called being good for your word.

        There are rewards that go with living as if God’s seeing your every move, but they’re so personal and custom-made to the individual that my rewards wouldn’t be near as appealing as your rewards. But if just one other person chooses to live like God’s watching his or her every move, then just as God promised in the
        story of Lot, he won’t take us all out because he’s lost patience with us. If two or more people choose to live like God’s watching their every move, I think we’d have us a bona fide movement toward honesty, and that’s bound to garner us all some great rewards.

        All any one of us has to do is choose not to lie, not to steal. Choose to live by the ethics and morals that you believe best suit you, and learn to tolerate others whose ethics and morals and choices are different from our own. The only line here a person cannot cross is hurting others.

        And you know what else? If you start talking to God like he hears your every word, and you thank him for all you’ve got, he talks back. I’m living proof.

      • // some wit once said- “An atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman.” //

        That’s wit? Really?

        It’s a good thing policemen and thieves never find each other. That’s why our jails are completely vacant. (satire)

        A more proper analogy is that an atheist can’t find god, for the same reason a child cannot find Santa.

  3. A child knowing that 2 spoonfulls of food is better than 1 is not a child using math. It is called them being hungry they eat until they are full. If what you claim is true then children would also understand the difference between a $100 dollar bill vs a $1.00 dollar bill which they cant conceptualize a child would rather have 10 $1.00 dollar bills than 1 $100. Also if it was instilled in us as you so claim why do we need to learn it in school and often stuggle with eat even in the early math classes. What warped view. Dogs and other animals like more food as well so I guess my puppy will be doing Calculus soon. In fact man did not begin to invent and use modern mathmatics until serveral thousand years ago. What about the other 200,000 to 100,000 years prior? Stop your wishfull thinking to support your own self interested conclusions. On a side note which god do you say this Math proves exists? Zeus, Odin, Brahman, Vishnu, Ra, Horus. Just wondering since you claim to know.

    • Apparently, reading comprehension is not in your skill-set. I specifically chose cookies as my example in my reply as the original post used candy versus food because both cookies and candy are options, not necessities. A child, generally, will eat until full, but candy or a cookie is a treat, even a reward, and a toddler knowing two pieces of candy or two cookies is greater than, or more than, one demonstrates that even a child this young understands innately the mathematical concept of more, or greater than.

      As for my “wishful” thinking to support my “self-interested” conclusions, didn’t the cavemen, prior to the advent of the over-glorified modern man (of which you are a fine, arrogant example), use rudimentary math? Did they not understand that two woolly mammoth carcasses would get their little tribe through the winter much better than one? So, they, too, understood the mathematical concept of more, or to put it in terms even you can understand, one plus one equals two. Your own self-interests consist of arriving uninvited at a blog you don’t understand and thinking you’re so intelligent, so far above the rest of us lowly humans, that you possibly have something of interest to impart to anyone who might bother to read your fine example of ignorance all the way to the bitter end.

      As for the God I demonstrated exists, I guess that’s for me to know and you doubting-Thomases to find out, later, after your body is back to dust. Seems your mind has beaten your body to that dust already.

      By the way, at the risk of repeating myself–who invented Math? You still haven’t answered that one yet.

  4. Americo Benavides: replace god with Zeus or Odin

    Nepthali Dumz: The answer is in psychology books.. they just call “it” imaginary friend.

    Margreet Mol: Who says Mathematics was ‘created’? And we are definitely not born with it. There are people with somthing called discalculia. Got someone in my family.

    Nepthali Dumz: I’m pretty sure this god (if it existed) doesn’t care about bacon fetish and people’s sex life, meaning, people make those claims, too, about a god’s existence. If claims are proof of a god, and mathematics is an accepted claim (which it isn’t), then let’s throw out bacon fetishes and sex, too, or keep them based on mathematics being a legitimate claim.

    Andre Weyher: This is so awkward that I dont even know where to start criticizing it.. we were also born with the knowledge that if we jump off a building, we will die, and so are most animals.. but what does that have do to with proving gods existence??
    Besides, one of the last sentences does not make any sense whatsoever; “there must also be a Mind behind it all.” – There MUST be?? Oh really? Says who? 😀

    Peter Cornillie: There is a tribe in the amazon that does not have numbers. So, math is the ALMOST universal language.

    Bill Moody: Let me count the fallacies…

    First there is the equivocation of referring to mathematics as a “Language” with the implication that since language is man made, ‘created’ in a sense that therefore “someone” must have created Mathematics.

    Then comes the Non Sequitor, of linking a “mind” (universal) with this “language” and presuming it to be “god.”

    Andre Weyher: And it also raises the question what mathematics IS in reality.. It’s nothing more than a set of rules that we came up with ourselves! A framework with which we chose to understand the world around us. Mathematics is not an entity on it’s own.

    Robert Gray: You’re not born knowing maths. You have to be taught it, because it’s a human invention.

    Robert Gray: He has no argument, except “I don’t understand something so god did it”

    Bill Moody: It’s the same old “philosophical” argument that takes the form;
    A. There are universal ‘laws’.
    B. Human Law comes from the mind of man.
    Thus, Universal Laws must come from the Universal Mind.
    Thus, god.

    It sounds like a good argument, but it hinges entirely on the equivocation between ‘Legality’ and scientific/mathematical law.

    Legality IS ‘created’ by man.
    Scientific/Mathematical laws are OBSERVED and formulated to describe the conditions of the universe.
    It is conflating the two concepts that invalidate the argument.

    In another sense, it’s just the old “Argument from Order”. The universe displays Order, I can’t see how something can be orderly without someone making it so (Incredulity). Thus God (Non Sequitor).

    Martin Krisp: http://youtu.be/14JavH4Rk7k

    John Bonyi: A blatant insult to hard working great minds, Newton, Archimedes, Euclid, Einstein to name a few. Higher level math is based on formulas. The moron here is trying to represent the end result without a FORMULA!

    Joe Furterer Ukatheist: Agreed, it’s an argument from ignorance. They don’t know the answer, so they assume it to be god (argument from ignorance), and then use that assumption to prove that assumption true (begging the question).

    Colin Miller: Let me rephrase the assertion: I don’t understand how everyone can understand something so complex as math, therefore I assert a much more complex being as the source of this complex issue I have no understanding of.”

    Gene Kopf: This is going down the road of the philosophy of mathematics.

    The first error is that this article uses the fallacy of three god if the gaps. “Math exists, so it must be God!”

    The second problem is that it uses the Platonist schhol of philosophy. Yet, if one accepts the embodied mind theories, which are totally naturalistic, there are no problems. What thus school of mathematical philosophy holds is that our minds have constructed mathematics based upon our pattern recognition in reality. The Platonist school has not demonstrated that mathematics is a real item upon which reality is constructed.

    Whenever anyone claims to prove a god ontologically, I guarantee that it is a case of initial assumptions being applied which are not demonstrated. In this case, the assumptions are that the Platonist school is right, and if so, the cause is a god. And of course, if one says that mathematics needs a cause from the Platonist philosophy and claim that it is god, we have to ask the cause of God, and we know the headaches there.

    Karan Trivedi: One word answer: Evolution.

    I fail to grasp how they made the jump from Math is universal to Jesus done it. There was a point of time in human history where math WASN’T innate. We learnt through trial and error. Logic for man came into being about 25, 000 years ago. Now the physics engine is embedded in the human brain. This article, like any other, is an argument from argument. Its is fallacious, just like the Kalam cosmological Argument. Ridiculous conclusion.

    Armeen Haghighatjou: ‎We could survive without math, but it’s hard to comprehend the idea since everything is tangled into mathematics, but in a world where we could not count or keep track of things in that respect we could still wander around collecting food and water and sleeping whenever, though that..is…just hard to imagine a being being incapable of having the thought of keping track of things by using a system.

    Saying things can be proven or disproved is not true. We know nothing for certain.

    Saying we’re born with innate knowledge of math is not true. Whether or not we’re born with any knowledge is obviously indeterminable, what is instinct? I’m not sure, but claiming to -know- that a baby just understands numbers somehow, is ridiculous.

    ^ I bring up those two points to show how this statement is more like propaganda than anything, mindless untruths being spewed.

    And associating numerology with god is ridiculous, don’t think of it as a system of numbers that everything just happened to conform to, some sort of intelligent design. Think of it of math explaining math, most people can recognize one object, and two objects and so on, we expanded upon the idea of counting, and shapes and so on, drawing parallels with numbers to reveal formula and whatnot.

    • So, basically what you and others of greater or lesser intellect have agreed on is that Man should get the credit for creating mathematics, yet not one human can explain where the numbers came from, numbers that we’ve all used throughout the history of the species, like the mathematical concepts we didn’t know existed, but that were crucial to our survival as a species, even before we learned to label everything in our myriad history of languages in order to facilitate communication. No, these numbers, this base upon which everything mathematical is predicated just showed up one day, out of the blue, along with our understanding of them. These numbers, much like our planet, the galaxies, the universe, just evolved into being. Which mathematical theory of Origin is that–chaos or random?

      Two woolly mammoths are greater than one. Even cavemen knew that much, embedded in their genetic makeup, stamped on their dna before language itself was invented. I bet they never talked about two woolly mammoths being greater than one because no one wanted to tell another member of their tribe, “duh.” You say Evolution is responsible, but this, too, is merely another process whose origin is yet to be fully uncovered. So, who set the process of Evolution in motion? Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot. Science can’t possibly be the study of God’s handiwork, his machinations, based on his math.

      Science must be pitted against God whenever and wherever possible. Isn’t that your final answer?

      There can be no study of Science to better know and understand God. No looking at Nature to understand the Nature of our Creator. No, Man must’ve made Science like he fabricated the original numbers used in mathematics out of his thin evolving airs. We dumber-than-thou simply had to wait for modern-day Man to separate all Science from the notion of a God in order to then allow other modern men to realize their victory, to claim their credit for everything in Existence and satisfy the evolving Human Ego, quashing any calculated possibility, even the most random mathematical chance of a possibility, of a God right out of the original equation that begat Life itself. Except these modern men haven’t yet discovered the original equation that begat Life itself or they would be making whole universes by now, just for shits and giggles.

      Thank you for sharing such vaunted wisdom with us lesser beings, that we might be duly impressed, thereby convincing you of your continued greatness of intellect. Armed with your pack of opinions and on the lookout for any mention of God must make you feel not quite so insignificant, or is it insecure, a member of the dominant species sharing this world as you’ve just now, in writing, allowed us
      to share.

  5. Hal Helmboldt on February 8, 2012 at 8:44 pm said:

    “// some wit once said- “An atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman.” //

    That’s wit? Really?

    It’s a good thing policemen and thieves never find each other. That’s why our jails are completely vacant. (satire)

    A more proper analogy is that an atheist can’t find god, for the same reason a child cannot find Santa.”

    Actually, an atheist can’t find God because he wants to use Science to disprove the existence of God, leaving the atheist without any answer as to how all these Scientific processes, including Evolution as well as the numbers on which all mathematics is based, first came into being. Of course, in their intellectual dishonesty, atheists can’t admit even the remotest mathematical possibility that a God might exist because then their illogical hate for something they claim doesn’t exist as well as their unreasonable, yet sadistic love of tormenting others different than them would then be revealed.

Speak your piece

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s