Skip to content
February 1, 2014 / compassioninpolitics

Can you describe God in Mathemathical Concepts or Terms?

I don’t think that because Godel did doesn’t meet a particular definition of doing “math”–I don’t think that means he wasn’t doing math.

Critical thinking and systems thinking happens at multiple levels. I think two things about Godel in this respect:
1. Godel was thinking mathematically
2. You can use Godel in ways that have mathematical implications

Here are a couple
God = the IAM (aka God is = infinity)
God = laws of science and nature Its probably more accurate to say (God > laws of nature and science)
Godels theorem (You could check out the wikipedia entry, or this article which explains some of the other implications and provides additional resources at the end: Godels Theorem )

You might also think using the symbols of logic, the symbols of geometry, or boolean operators which might be considered “mathematical” thinking to various extents.

This quote is pretty interesting:

Without mathematics we cannot penetrate deeply into philosophy.
Without philosophy we cannot penetrate deeply into mathematics.
Without both we cannot penetrate deeply into anything.”
“Math is the language God wrote the universe in.”

Other options in terms of integrating the two areas–these aren’t actually formulas, but will link to resources about how to integrate math and God (I’m sure there are a number of similar resources available online):
Mathematics and Christianity
Resources for Integrating Faith and Mathematics

* My second equation is somewhat incomplete, but I think interesting to think about. The later part I think ideally corrects this challenge.

** You could replace laws of science with laws of math or principles of math in #2.
That is to say, your definition of doing math creates a rigged game–based on the assumptive nature of your definition of math, which is very minimalistic. In fact, that definition might end up excluding multiple mathematic-based or related from the field of mathematics.

It would seem that fractals and complexity theory almost by definitions are attempts to find the God-like qualities of the universe. They are attempts to find the fingerprints of God. I’m not saying those doing that work are intentionally looking for God, just that those practices are some of the practices which are theoretically capable of describing God.

We can describe God on mutliple levels–and in indirect ways. Given that the map doesn’t fit the territory–we should just agree that descriptions of God may be limited–but none-the-less are (useful) descriptions.
I wrote the following in response to someone in the thread:

So, rationality, formulas, and logic, although helpful aren’t probably going to tell a full enough story of God to 1) explain Him fully 2) increase likelihood of someone following Him?

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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

%d bloggers like this: