God and Math Preliminary Review
Loading ...Please review the “God and Math” pdf (if you didn’t get it by email from me and would like to review it then contact me) and let me know what you think. Add your comments below.
Tags: god, math, revelation
May 14th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Good premise. My thoughts are too long and don’t get into the money (tithe). This is about Christ, not prosperity or return or… IMHO, that clouds the message and may be an obstacle for some if they start thinking of a televangelist that has turned them off in the past.
Love the start brother!
May 15th, 2009 at 3:13 am
Thanks. I will see what I can do.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Pat,
I believe this was a very insightful review from a friend. Again, I like the concept but agree this may not hit the audience you are looking to impact.
Stay encouraged!
“…The problem is that mathematics, as a science, relies on axioms (widely-accepted truths), definitions that can be observed to be true and the results of simpler proofs.
He, on the other hand, starts from a foundation of suppositions and assumptions. For example, his first “building block” is the notion that Sowing = Reaping (or to be more true to what the Bible actually says, “what is reaped = what was sowed” – the Bible never suggests that reaping and sowing are identical actions).
The first problem with this assumption is its source – The Bible. If you’re making your argument to a believer, then they will likely allow you to rely on the assumption. A non-believer will immediately point out that the Bible is just a book written by men and unless you can establish that what the book says is true, no definitions from it can be assumed to be universally true. So if he’s going to set up definitions based on the Bible, he needs to start by proving that the Bible is true first. Of course if he does that, he doesn’t need to do anything else!
The second problem is that “what is reaped = what was sowed” is observably not true in some instances. We’ve all seen corrupt people sow evil and reap money and other rewards. Some are eventually caught and imprisoned, adding some balance to the equation, but many aren’t. One could argue that in a universal or eternal sense precisely balancing justice will be done, making both sides of the equation equal, but this is getting dangerously close to the idea of Karma.
I applaud his efforts and think the concept has some merit*, but I believe he needs to reconsider his audience and the arguments they’ll make.
*I think the metaphor of a mathematical proof could be useful for logically stepping someone through a path to belief or faith, but I don’t believe it will ever be as solid as a true mathematical proof. The closest I’ve seen is Lewis’ Lord, Liar, Lunatic argument, which I find very convincing. In the end, though, there are simply too many things that have to be taken on pure faith or at best lightly documented history, archaeology, etc. for someone to be able to prove anything about matters of faith with 1=1 solidity.”
eselliot
June 4th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Interesting comment.
I would add that the Bible refers to whatever is sowed is what is reaped. IE, if you sow tomato seeds, you get tomato plants. Or in another way of wording, if you sow tomatoes, you get tomatoes. So, you might say it is a stretch, but it is still accurate from a point of view.
And yes, this does begin with the concept that the Bible is true and does not take time to prove that because that is a separate argument. That is all.