Illogic As an Argument for God

I just had one of the most bizarre conversations about the existence (or lack thereof) of god. The person who I was talking with had a very unique explanation for why he believed that god existed. It was one that I had never heard before and it certainly hurt my brain a little to consider it. The argument was derived from mathematics, assuming that existence itself was akin to a mathematical equation with an end result of 0. That is, for every thing that we can determine with logic, we have a value of 1. Thus, by definition, we must also have an illogical and unobservable -1 to balance it out.

We can imagine 1; that is easy: the value of something existing is 1 and the value of something not existing is 0. Can we imagine -1? Only as a subtraction for a quantity, but not as an actual state of existence. However, in this argument, -1 is god, the balance necessary to reconcile the equation of existence. This is a compelling concept, but who says we need to view the world as an equation anyways? After all, mathematics is a language, not a system. We use it to describe our world in the most comprehensive way possible, but it is not always useful for every situation.

The language of mathematics is always evolving and, like any language, reflects the culture that employs it. The Babylonians, in 300 BC, used base-60 (same as our time measurement system) and invented the concept of 0 as they created the first written notation for a figure that represented nothing, or the absence of all things. Roman numerals have no 0, this is because a symbol's value is determined by the other symbols around it. This all goes to show that our modern system of math is just one of many ways to look at the universe and is not necessarily the defining lens of clarity that we seek. To tie the existence of god to math is just another way of filling the gaps in our knowledge with the assumption of a higher power.

We won't stop there because the argument is not dead yet. Even if we don't use math to debunk this, we should still address the concept of a -1 existence. Singularities are discontinuities in logic, points along the logical scale that don't seem to follow the rules that all the other points do. To explain how singularities can be found in our interpretation of the world, let's look at black holes as we currently understand them. We cannot know for sure what is at the center of a black hole, but we can apply mathematics and quantum physics to their evidence to derive theories. For example, we know that black holes condense space itself because of their light-distorting properties when observed in front of other cosmic objects. These same mathematics lead us to the conclusion that at the center of a black hole exists a singularity where matter is condensed to an infinite density, with infinite gravitational pull and zero volume. If you think about it, zero volume is another way of saying that something doesn't exist, but that is not actually the case. When it comes to black holes, matter is just condensed beyond the means of explanation that our current systems provide.

This missing link in our understanding is another crack for theists to slip the existence of god into. That is why the argument is referred to as "god of the gaps." It is yet another idea borne of our lack of understanding rather than what we do understand.

Many thought experiments use the doubt employed by "god of the gaps" to shake our understanding of what we already know quite well. By stating that something cannot be observed thus allowing infinite possibilities, these experiments attempt to make us think two things: that what we have learned through science is not reliable and that reality is in the eye of the beholder. But science is reliable enough and no matter what anyone observes, there is only one reality.

You might have heard of Schrodinger's cat, but a more basic example of that conundrum is the timeless question: if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, did it make a sound? This follows the idea that something only exists once it can be observed, and until that point any number of alternate possibilities could be true. In my opinion, this is only a question asked by the truly neurotic thinkers. Science exists to help us make predictions about the future based on past observations. So yes, if I know anything about the world, the tree did make a sound. Observe one that doesn't make a sound and then I'll start thinking. And the cat? It is and has been whatever it is observed to be.

But I'd like it to be thought dead, along with the argument.