Can you explain mathematically as logical that "God exists?"

The proposition "Does God exist?" Has deeply tied to ideology, academics, and morality, and discussions have been repeated for centuries. However, if the language used for discussion is different, the thought of the writer is different, or the time when discussion is done is different, the bias is inevitably interrupted and we can not reach a logical conclusion. If that is the case, can we prove the existence or absence of God by using "universal, unbiased language" mathematics "? A movie that took up that thing, Youtube channel "AsapSCIENCEIt is open to the public.

Can Math Prove God's Existence?


Often, it is claimed that "the world is reasonably designed is the proof that God exists". People with faithful thinking will surely have God 's will to be able to have such a complicated and strange out - of - the - world world.


Such a claim is called "reductio ad absurdum" (return law). Saying "If the earth is flat, it will fall off as far as the end," suggesting that it shows how wrong the idea is and how ridiculous it will be.


Applying the claim that "reductio ad absurdum" "The world is rationally designed is the proof that God exists" is applied, "If there is no God, human beings can not evolve, as human beings are evolving , It is hard to think that there is no god "syllogism is considered.


In order to advance the idea we assume a 2 × 2 table considering whether there is God or not, and whether humanity exists in each case.


If you think "God does not exist but there are humans", human beings are born depending on several factors. It is hard to imagine that it is a very small probability.


If you think that God exists, God will not necessarily create humans, but it can be said that human beings are born with a much higher probability than to think of "by chance by several factors".


And since there are actually human beings, there is no need for discussion on the "no man exists" part of the table. When thinking like this it seems reasonable to argue that it is plausible to think that "God exists and God exists man," among the four possible patterns.


The disadvantage of this logic is that we assume binary conflict of "absence or presence". In addition to this, several possibilities can be assumed.


Even if you say "god" in a bite, its image differs depending on the community. There are also communities that assume multiple gods, like the "gods of Yao Yorozu" in Japan.


While the probability of existence of humans when assuming a single god is a small probability of several billionths or a few tenths of a trillion,Jordan · ElemenbergStates that "the probability that humans exist when assuming multiple gods" is one hundred thousandth of a degree. However, what matters here is not exact figures, but whether we can agree with the logic that "if there are multiple gods, the opportunity to create humans will increase."


It also states that it is important not to compare horizontally "there is no god" and "there is a single god" and "there are multiple gods", but think independently of each other. When comparing side by side, "There is more than one god" feels more plausible, but looking at each one vertically, "the possibility of creating a human when there is a single god" and "the possibility of creating multiple gods Possibility to create a human being "individually.


We can also think about the possibilities.SIMSIt is an assumption that you are in a simulation made by someone, as in.I also believe in Earon Masklike,Simulation hypotMany people are advocating and as technology develops indeed, such simulations can be executed soon.


A new possibility was added to the table. Again, accurate figures are not important, but agreeing to be able to create such simulations in the future is not difficult.


In conclusion, it is possible to exploit the logic by mathematics as "the possibility that God exists is higher than the possibility that God does not exist". But this does not conclude that God exists.


The logic that "God is more likely to think that God exists" than anything else is more plausible than to describe the argument of the assumption that the world is based on someone's simulation " It is from.