Spiked Math Games  // Math Fail Blog  // Gauss Facts  // Spiked Math Comics



God, Man, Science - January 10, 2010
Rating: 4.1/5 (68 votes cast)
  • Currently 4.1/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Spiked Math Comic - God, Man Science

home     info     archive     contact     rss

Google+ Page   //   Facebook Page   //   Twitter Page


'"Oh bugger!" says God, and disappears in a puff of logic.'

I am glad God doesn't have to stay around maintaining our existence. Otherwise, we would disappear into Russel's paradox.

Nah, god is the first observer, thus collapsing the reality wave and bringing all into existance.

I guess you don't know "steal" is not the correct verb for copyright infringement.
I'm talking about that "greetings" text.

There might be trouble if we follow this to it's logical conclusion....

But God is supposed to be omniscient so God must have known that would happen. Science must be part of God's plan for engineered obsolescence.

But the babel fish...

Oh, I get it! It's like rock, paper, scissors!

Hey guys, who's up for a game of God, Science, Man? Best two out of three gets to go annoy the evangelists again!

Well Mr. or Mrs. 'S', since Mike owns the copytight and gives permission to use, where is the infringement?

TBOTA I think God made an error inventing logik :))


I think he's just nitpicking, since my choice of wording is poor in the top left information box on the site. In which case, my response is that "I major in math, not a english majors."

But that's a very tricky subject nowadays, and using "steal" (which by definition means that the original owner loses the propriety) instead of "copy without permission" (or something similar; which is incorrect too in this situation since you're allowing it ^^') can be understood as if you're defending the Media Industry in the conflict (because they always use "steal" even if they already know it's incorrect).

I really hope you don't (I don't expect you to defend file-sharing either).

I suggest to simply use "copy".

Ya, the wording in the creative commons license is what I should be using. I figured since I had a link in the footer to the license, then I wouldn't have to be as formal in my greeting :-), but perhaps I should modify that now.

Well, either I'm giving itn to a terrible joke, or is it just me? I think the actual wording is quite clear and understandable (and I'm not native English). It's kind of 'tounge in ceek' and vey well fits the spirit of this site. I mean, after all, if one does only (want to/should) use legaleese compilant (and PC-crippled) phrases here, quite some of the cartoon content would need to be rephrased or plain removed. I don'T think such a tight viewpoint would fit. Beside, language isn't a simple construct with one true way to form a testemony. And we should never have lawyers define whats a valid assertion or not.

Anyway, I enjoy this site and it's expressions, though I didn't have a chance to steal anyting by now, but I keep it in mind :))


Therefore, by transitivity, God refutes God.

By symmetry Man Created God and by reflexivity science refutes itself.
I'm not sure this is an equivalence relation you know...

Cornelius Van Til, the great Dutch theologian, would say that mathematics and science are founded on the Laws of Logic. The Law of Logic are objective and unchanging, therefore some kind of transcendent force developed them, hence God must exist. I don't know how true this sentiment in the minds of others, but the patterned nature of mathematics itself (like the method Cantor used to prove the rational numbers uncountable) seems to underlie that belief. If patterns can exist within the language of nature itself, then I don't think it's a stretch to believe in a divine being.

What say you, folks?

With all due respect, I don't see where this argument makes sense. Maybe I didn't understand, but why must something objective and unchanging be developed by some kind of transcendent force? And why must the transcendent force be a god which created us? We aren't objective and unchanging (as far as I know), so this transcendent force also creates changing things. Why would it do that? Isn't unchanging better? I don't know. In fact, I'm going to shut up now.

I should do the same thing. I guess my point is that in all parts of mathematics, we end up using the same axioms, laws and theorems to come up with new ideas. The foundational nature of mathematics really has not changed. The same algebraic laws are used in basic and advanced applications. Why haven't mathematicians and other people deviated from those laws? That is what I mean by the objective and unchanging nature of mathematics. My question is this, why is it that way? I guess the answer should be "I don't know" if one wants real honesty.

You end up using the same set of axioms, laws and theorems because these theorems were invented by your predecessors and they haven proven useful in doing your kind of science. You should also note that »math« itself is not »the language of nature« but merely a language made by mankind to describe parts of nature - and following this idea, you also get to know why it »fits so nicely«: Because the ancient greeks and egyptians wanted their tools to be useful, because Newton, as he invented calculus did so to do physics and therefor was in need of a language/logic that actually described nature.

The point you could wonder about is why the forces of electrodynamics follow (approximately) the same rules as the force of gravitation etc., but this is not because some super-duper being invented them the »right« way but because science was able – with the help of math – to abstract far enough to do so.

Am I actually making any sense? :/

Makes sense to me--the usefulness of the beauty that is Math is a mystery otherwise...

Makes sense to me.

I'm sorry to get involved in a discussion like this but the problem is here:
"The Law of Logic are objective and unchanging, therefore some kind of transcendent force developed them, hence God must exist."
Something which is objective and unchanging cannot have been 'created' by a 'force', transcendent or otherwise, because it is unchanging.
If god made 2+2=4 then what did 2+2 = before then? Any answer to such a question is without meaning.
Read Dawkins' *The God Delusion* for a good explanation of why the sky hook concept is crap.

By the way, I love today's comic!

On one of those lines is Barack Obama, Chuck Norris, and one sad Murloc. I can't tell where.

If Mike (Spiked Math) hadn't responded yesterday, I'd be afraid he vanished in a puff of God's logic...

WHERE IS TODAY'S AND YESTERDAY'S COMIC?!?!?!?!?!? im dying without spiked math

At least it was stuck on a comic that provoked a lot of discussion...

This comic would be funny as hell if it were true. The thing is science doesn't refute God, it simply doesn't confirm Him. Moreover, most of history's biggest scientists actually knew so much about how things worked they concluded that the complexity of it all must have a God behind it. (Pascal, Newton, Galileo etc. and even lots of todays scientists say that there'll always be things which can't be explained by men, I think they're right.)

Leave a comment

Profile pictures are tied to your email address and can be set up at Gravatar. Click here for recent comments.
(Note: You must have javascript enabled to leave comments, otherwise you will get a comment submission error.)
If you make a mistake or the comment doesn't show up properly, email me and I'll gladly fix it :-).


home     info     archive     contact     rss

Google+ Page   //   Facebook Page   //   Twitter Page

Welcome to Spiked Math!

Hello my fellow math geeks. My name is Mike and I am the creator of Spiked Math Comics, a math comic dedicated to humor, educate and entertain the geek in you. Beware though, there might be some math involved :D

New to Spiked Math?
View the top comics.

New Feature: Browse the archives in quick view! Choose from a black, white or grey background.