Of all the professions in the “STEM” fields, mathematicians are the most religious. Compared to physicists, astronomers and biologists, about half of all mathematicians have some from of faith, while people who study the physical world, unsurprisingly, barely register on the faith radar.
If you are wondering why that is, look no further than this website, which purports to have a mathematical proof that God exists. Here’s the basic breakdown:
- God is defined as a uncaused causer
- Infinite regression isn’t logical
- The Universe must have some from of logic
- The only explanation is God.
Of course, the formula this guy uses is a little more complex, but when it all boils down to it, it’s the same pathetic First Cause argument you’ve heard a hundred times already, and it’s just as unconvincing. You see, the first point of the argument, that “God is beyond the laws of physics”, means precisely squat. The notion that there can be an “uncaused causer” violates the very principle this individual uses to prove their premise in the first place. Simply asserting something does not make it true. I would just turn around and argue that the Universe itself could be proof that there needn’t be a first cause to begin with.
Incidentally, there’s no proof that this Universe isn’t part of an infinite regress of other Universes. We simply don’t know. That’s the problem when you are using something as mysterious as the Universe as your basic proof. It’s way beyond our current and perhaps future comprehension, so it isn’t something I would recommend you try and use as rock solid “evidence” of something.
When you see this kind of pathetic math, then you know you’re talking to a believer desperate to try and prove the unprovable. They want their God to exists outside of the known laws of the Universe, but yet somehow still be bound by its logic. All that is being accomplished here is the equivalent of a word game, and when you boil it down, even their own definitions make no sense. If there is no infinite regress, it does not follow that there is therefore a power beyond logic to resolve this definitional problem. It simply means that your formula is incomplete. It’s back to the drawing board, boys.
I suspect that so long as people hold on to superstitious, they will continue to try and use every tool at their disposal to try and prove that the Universe was the product of what amounts to a magic trick. So long as there are bad faith arguments, so too will there be bad faith mathematicians eager to prove the existence of their imaginary friend.