Does math lie? What is the mathematical probability of there being a "God, Jesus, and the Holy Spook"?

Question

Or is math a tool of the devil?

Donald... I want to believe, throw me a factoid, or something, some tangible proof and not just your word...

karen i.. I have noticed that, not great spellerrs either.

Answer 1

You questions hurt my head I think it's time foe WAKE and BAKE

Answer 2

the Devil has asked me to step and explain the rudiments of non secular calculus given that God and the Devil both share an interest in continued existence.
Let us start with the assumption that the prevailing theories arising from quantum mechanics do in fact relate the real world experience in the manner know as the many worlds hypothesis. In this theory all possible universes exist in parralell constantly branching as the multiplicity of choices causes the universe to undergo constant division. In this scheme even the unlikeliest things are a certainty given sufficient time so the the maths for calculating the probability of three unlikely events occuring in sucession is given by the following:

Probability of unlikely outcome 1x probability of unlikely outcome 2 x probability of unlikely outcome 3

Hence the probability is dependant on the unlikelyness of the individual events which in an infinite multiverse give infinite time is a certainty. There you go I have just given definitive proof of the existence of God. The only question remaining is where did he go?

Answer 3

Well, statistics are often manipulated in an attempt to portray falsehoods as facts. So, sometimes math can be made to lie, (if you don't look at it very carefully).

Also, would "imaginary numbers" be considered lies? Although the square-root of a negative number can't really exist logically, you can still use the square-root of -1 to modal rotational systems. So, apparently, even when math "lies" you can still get some truth out of it.

Would you have to use imaginary numbers to figure out the possibility of God existing?

The Bible does lie about mathematics, (or is somewhat inaccurate, at least). In 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 measurements are given for a round basin located in front of the Temple in Jerusalem. The round basin is described as having a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits. So, according to the Bible, the true value of PI would be 3.

I've noticed that when christians try to claim a statistical basis for their faith, they are almost always actually calculating the probability of the existence of some general god, not their specific god. They don't seem to realize this. The chances of their specific god existing is much, much, much less than the chances of some generalized god existing.

Answer 4

p<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 1 E -666

Answer 5

Math doesn't lie, which is why 1+1+1=3, not 1.

Answer 6

As much as I would like to take credit for this answer, there is no way I can put it better thanAmerica's number 1 skeptic, Michael Shermer.

...if faith is tethered to science, what happens when the science changes? One of the most innovative works in this genre is The Probability of God (Crown Forum, 2003), by Stephen D. Unwin, a risk management consultant in Ohio, whose early physics work on quantum gravity showed him that the universe is probabilistic and whose later research in risk analysis led him to this ultimate computation.

Unwin rejects most scientific attempts to prove the divine--such as the anthropic principle and intelligent design--concluding that this "is not the sort of evidence that points in either direction, for or against." Instead he employs Bayesian probabilities, a statistical method devised by 18th-century Presbyterian minister and mathematician Reverend Thomas Bayes. Unwin begins with a 50 percent probability that God exists (because 50¿50 represents "maximum ignorance"), then applies a modified Bayesian theorem:

FORMULA: http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/000E350F-2F66-10CF-AD3D83414B7F0000_formula.gif

The probability of God's existence after the evidence is considered is a function of the probability before times D ("Divine Indicator Scale"): 10 indicates the evidence is 10 times as likely to be produced if God exists, 2 is two times as likely if God exists, 1 is neutral, 0.5 is moderately more likely if God does not exist, and 0.1 is much more likely if God does not exist. Unwin offers the following figures for six lines of evidence: recognition of goodness (D = 10), existence of moral evil (D = 0.5), existence of natural evil (D = 0.1), intranatural miracles (prayers) (D = 2), extranatural miracles (resurrection) (D = 1), and religious experiences (D = 2).

Plugging these figures into the above formula (in sequence, where the Pafter figure for the first computation is used for the Pbefore figure in the second computation, and so on for all six Ds), Unwin concludes: "The probability that God exists is 67%." Remarkably, he then confesses: "This number has a subjective element since it reflects my assessment of the evidence. It isn't as if we have calculated the value of pi for the first time."

Indeed, based on my own theory of the evolutionary origins of morality and the sociocultural foundation of religious beliefs and faith, I would begin (as Unwin does) with a 50 percent probability of God's existence and plug in these figures: recognition of goodness (D = 0.5), existence of moral evil (D = 0.1), existence of natural evil (D = 0.1), intranatural miracles (D = 1), extranatural miracles (D = 0.5), and religious experiences (D = 0.1). I estimate the probability that God exists is 0.02, or 2 percent.

Regardless, the subjective component in the formula relegates its use to an entertaining exercise in thinking--on par with mathematical puzzles--but little more. In my opinion, the question of God's existence is a scientifically insoluble one. Thus, all such scientistic theologies are compelling only to those who already believe. Religious faith depends on a host of social, psychological and emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with probabilities, evidence and logic. This is faith's inescapable weakness. It is also, undeniably, its greatest power.

Answer 7

Man I am great at math if that becomes a tool of the devil im just going to run for anti christ

Answer 8

Darling, you can prove *anything* by using math. Just as the physicists. The reason there is no "God equation" is that most scientists are too busy trying to deny His existence.

And I suck at Math. And spelling.

Answer 9

C.I.A.:
It still reduces to three.
But which one likes to free-ball?
Fashion is the devil's tool: it has turned Cuba Gooding, Jr. into an inverted Tom Hanks.

Answer 10

Math's a tool of the devil. lol

Answer 11

There are an infinite number of events which depend on previous events leading up to your life.

These events all had probabilities (a number between 0 and 1).

The probability of an event is calculated by the product of all of the probabilities of the events leading up to it.

The product of an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1 is zero.

The probability of your life is zero.

You don't exist.

(Did I just hear a peal of maniacal laughter and a "poof" sound?)