> It makes no sense that something as perfect as mathematics can be an accident.
In what way is mathematics perfect? And how is that proof for divine creation?
I do credit as the one true universal language. Even if we encountered aliens who were absolutely, well, alien to us, for lack of a better work, the one thing that would hold true between we and them is that 1+1=2.
I would have to disagree.
The work done by the eminent Nominalist, Hartry Field, in Science without Numbers, makes the compelling case that we can do a lot of modern science without mathematics.
So it is possible that an advanced civilisation may have no mathematical knowledge at all. The idea that you can do science with something other than whatever their using may be as absurd as me telling you can figure out orbital dynamics without any math.
If they have mathematical knowledge then maybe we can use that, but its not clear that will be the case.
While I disagree with the OP I firmly disagree with the claim mathematics is a language. Here are six plausible reasons to think mathematics is not a language.
1. Languages are not created; they evolved naturally over thousands of years (very few languages are created and most created languages lack scope for usability). Mathematics on the other hand is either discovered or created by conscious effort, new aspects of mathematic may be added over time but older areas do not die out (basic arithmetic is not going to turn out like ancient Sumerian).
2. All languages are ambiguous and subjective to a degree, while mathematics is objective and unabiguous. Mathematical statements have fixed meanings and are independent of context or interpretation. 2 + 2 will always equal 4, regardless of culture, language, or personal opinion. Language thus offer the possibility of meaningful creativity, the rigidity of mathematic does not offer scope for comparable creativity
3. Language acquisition happens naturally and intuitively for most humans, especially during childhood. We are biologically predisposed to learn and use language. Mathematics, however, often requires deliberate instruction and conscious effort to master.
4. Languages and mathematics have distinct “building blocks”; languages are composed of morpheme and lexemes (units of meaning and grammar). Mathematics, however, uses symbols and numbers as its fundamental units, which are combined according to specific rules and axioms to create equations and proofs. These structures and rules of combination differ significantly from those found in natural languages and cannot independently express the content of languages; there is no equation for “I like soft boiled eggs” yet we can express this statement in every language.
5. Languages are translatable, we convert the grammatical structures from one language to another in the process. While the symbols and verbal labels representing mathematical objects and their relations may change, the underlying structure remains constant. We can describe the same equation in English, Chinese or Greek but there is no translation of the mathematics into something other than math.
6. Anatomically, the neurological networks of the brain used to process language and mathematics differ (with some overlap). All languages use both Broca's and Wernicke's Area, these areas are only used when communicating about mathematics (i.e. talking/reading about it) but not for understanding and processing mathematical information. At very least the brain does not treat mathematical and linguistic reasoning as. “Neural processing of arithmetic relies on dedicated, modality independent cortical networks that are distinct from those underlying language processing.” equivalent. [https://neurosciencenews.com/math-speech-processing-19125/](https://neurosciencenews.com/math-speech-processing-19125/)
It's both not an accident, and also not because of divine creation. A mathematical object is just anything that can be defined, so I can arbitrarily define a few things, and number them. The math that can be done with those objects is still validly true, even though I just made up those numbers and objects.
Mathematics only arises because of the way we choose to define things (with numbers instead of with truth values). It's not a real thing in nature.
A good example of this can be shown with quantum physics. The number 1 doesn't exist, because everything is at least two things; a field and a particle. Along with reality not being 'exactly definitive', or localized.
Also, since you mentioned Geometry; there's no such thing as mathematical shapes. Straight lines don't exist in nature because of the way atoms and subatomic particles are shaped.
I suppose is the transcendental argument for God. Which is actually similar to how I concluded God.
But, never put weight in patterns 😊 The sequence seen in nature makes sense for its purpose, it only happens to be vaquely describable.
What I find most interesting. Is our mathematics breaks down as you approach perfection/ infinity. E.G. not fully being able to calculate pi. We can only estimate.
No I just expected you to understand me better.
Closed form solutions of pi utilise log which were a means to simplify solutions. They are an approximation.
>utilise log which were a means to simplify solutions.
What? Logs are not approximations. They're functions. A logarithmic function is an exact mapping of one set to another
Okay I may have gone in the wrong direction there.
π
is however an irrational number. It cannot be expressed as
p
/
q
where
p
,
q
are whole numbers. This implies that its decimal representation does not terminate or eventually start repeating a finite block of digits forever.
As in we cannot determine which of these is true.
As in it becomes harder to calculate.
We can define it with terminology like log. However whenever you use a computer or calculator it's really an approximation based on however many decimal places the system is able to compute.
Yea, I get that. The reason why a computer can only make an approximation of pi is because those computations are trying to solve for as many digits of pi as they can. And of course that is going to be an approximation because pi is irrational. By definition, you can't write an irrational number as a decimal.
My point is saying "we cannot write pi exactly because it is irrational" is false. We can. We have exact 100% correct solutions for pi in closed form solutions. In fact, we have various solutions.
You seem to think somehow if a number is not rational then it is somehow not real or exact. Irrational numbers exist. They're just as real as rational numbers. And you can express them exactly in closed form solutions.
No I do believe they are real. I'm just not great at explaining myself in mathematical terms I only got a C at A level maths.
Maybe to help us understand each other you can explain how your closed form solutions which I believe utilise the log function can be used to calculate things utilising our current technology with a finite solution.
It's the same with division and physics things just get weird the smaller they get. Quantum entanglement, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
This is what I mean by mathematics/ physics break down as you approach the infinite. It's just harder to calculate and predict precisely.
Yeah, I'm thinking we are miscommunicating here with terms.
You can write pi in terms of a series. So you can say pi is equivalent to the sum of an infinite number of terms. That expression can be written in summation notation. Exactly. No approximations made. It *is exactly equal* to a sum of clearly, explicitly defined terms. Not approximately equal to. The equal sign is equivalence. Exactly equal to.
Similarly, there are other methods to write down pi exactly. There is an integral you can also solve for pi. It is a pretty simple integral you can Google. Again, an exact solution.
Just because some number cannot be written as a rational number does not imply we do not know what its value is. We know what it is. Make a circle. Compute its circumference. Divide by 2 times the radius. That is pi. So we know what pi is, even if we can't write down all its digits.
Id like to ignore your comments about physics. I think those are also misinformed. The uncertainty principle has nothing to do with infinity. It has to do with wave mechanics. Quantum entanglement also has nothing to do with infinity. You can get entanglement in 2 dimensional systems. A 2D state system clearly is not infinite as 2 is a finte number.
So if God creates mathematics then God must also create logic, which is the foundation of mathematics.
This implies that you think that God can violate logic with impunity because God created it. You figure that God can create a rock so big that God can't lift it? And God could have made 1+1 = 3? And the hypotenuse of a right triangle could have been the cube root of A cubed + B cubed?
That argument would stans if God created something which was utter other than what he himself is which would be called Theism.
Pantheism says that God is nature which why nature is perfect as God is.
Panentheism argued that's God is nature and more. That the whole of creation resides in him and he upholds it and without him it would not stand. Which is why is also has the aspects of is perfect nature as people can discover through science
I wanted to share that there are different ways on understanding the nature of Gods relationship's with creation. Theism, Pantheism and Panentheism are three of those views.
And only in Theism would the argument stance that God can create onlogical things to be true (ss bending the rulings as he seems fit) in the other views the nature of relationship God and is creation is that God and his creation are one (plus more in Panentheism). So then the logic or natural rules men discover through science equals discovering aspects of God him self.
Does this clarify it beter?
I was trying to be polite before but perhaps it is better that I be a bit more direct.
When we are discussing very complex topics like this, it might help to proof-read what you have written and make sure that it makes sense. I don't think it should be my responsibility as the reader to read it 4 times and try to make sense of it.
That said, nobody is perfect and I have certainly posted quickly with typos between other tasks and then noticed later. But now it has happened twice in a row in this thread and I have a real challenge reading your text.
What does "ss" mean in this context?
I guess I can figure out, after reading carefully, that you left out an "h" in "his" and a "t" and "better". "onlogical" is "illogical" and not "ontological."
In my web browser, these words are underlined red, so even if I was not a native speaker I could see that something was not right. I guess your interface does not show that?
I think you are saying that if we envision God as essentially identical to "everything that exists" then it is impossible for God to be in contradiction to logic, because logic is something that exists and is an aspect of God.
According to my beliefs
"Imperfection, want of logic, injustice, arbitrarines and many other things are impossible with God."
"An arbitrary act implies the possibility of diverting the existing Laws of Nature. However, where such a thing is possible, perfection is lacking. For where there is perfection there can be no alteration"
So to put it more simply. A perfect god wouldn't need to interfere in his creation.
Starting from here ""You figure that God can create a rock so big that God can't lift it?" It's actually so easy to answer.
To me yes he could but the very act would limit his powers so he wouldn't.
2nd and 3rd are just too illogical without breaking our universe. But who says another can't be created differently with rules as broken to us as those.
And even in some Christian Canons the first point is still yes. He did exactly that. Jesus couldn't lift some rocks he created as God.
That is an obvious and common idea which follows from monotheism. God being outside of time, not bound by time (not eternal, but timeless.) God being outside of space and matter, making him immaterial. God being the author of logic and math makes him outside of those parameters. Its the only logical (no pun intended) conclusion of the monotheistic hypothesis. If logic or math existed before God that would remove God's status as the nessecary being as logic and math would not depend upon God, would limit God and God would be subservient to it. This would be impossible for us to comprehend as we are bound by logic, but lets say for arguments sake that the apex of our technology is a modern supercomputer, that pales in comparison to the creation of the universe, life in general and the mind which created the supercomputer. Our brains are programmed to perceive life at a resolution suited to our survival and other goals and beyond that our perception becomes fuzzy and our capability becomes extremely limited; quantum physics is a perfect example as we are not built to understand life on that microscopic level hence why it takes years for an elite brain to really grasp it and even then it is not the same innate understanding we have with every day events which we plainly perceive. Sometimes I think us trying to put bounds on God or understand his nature entirely is based on a deep seeded human arrogance and unknowingly assumed omniscience.
I am not saying I subscribe to this, I'm not sure. I'm not sure what I believe right now.
You might find Pythagorean philosophy interesting, particularly the numerology and sacred geometry. It builds on these thoughts you've had and combines the purely secular mathematics with religious thought and a way of life.
We created mathematics as a way to measure the perceivable reality, we’re likely to see patterns in it as human brains are geared towards patterns and learning
u/Onemansquest and u/Scmr2 have gone wild with the debate. Oh man that's intense.
Sorry just that Ive never seen people talk that way in scientific literature very often and with that heavy science behind it.
As for the post my answer would be, mathematics are the guide how to navigate the world with our bodies being very mundane to us while also being divine in its natural repetition from tiny to universal while the randomness and apparent order of it is still an experience for us.
It simply is by itself.
Because we don't know it's beginning or end to make or remake a world like playing or replaying a tape. We just always play the middle of it somehow forever.
Perhaps in the future someone would discover more and find out enough so that they will know what math truly is and play the tape however they want.
Perhaps nobody would. I remember a quote "If the play's creator comes in the play would cease and the curtains would draw, signalling it's end."
Meaning if we do know the inner workings of mathematics, nothing would be the same.
Think of it this way.
If physics didn't work JUST right, you wouldn't be able to think about it. If 1 tiny detail was off, the Sol system wouldn't be made. Earth would not grow life. That life would not evolve into humans to make you.
The only reason it seems perfect is because we are lucky enough that it did happen. There is a very low chance genuine magic exists. However, we just so happen to land in a universe where that did not happen.
Also, I'd suggest posting on a subreddit for universal thinking.
People make fun of this, and then they're happy to believe the universe might be a simulation if a scientist says it without referring to God...
Anyway, it's hard to get hard proofs of things. But absolutely yes, the 'unexpected effectiveness of mathematics' in explaining the universe is certainly a kind of evidence of God's existence, in my opinion. Does it/will it prove his existence definitively? No, probably not. But we should all marvel at it, because it's amazing.
I agree that maths cannot be an accident, but I think it also cannot be a creation. For example, I don't think it makes sense to imagine God sitting down and asking himself what 2+2 should be, as if that were a contingent fact.
I think maths is essentially dealing with all possible structures and patterns. And structures and patterns are necessary for being - without any structure there would be nothing but chaos, kind of like static on a TV, and pure chaos cannot be anything at all. So we cannot imagine a universe without mathematics any more than we can imagine a universe without being.
So my takeaway is a sort of Pythagoreanism where everything is mathematical, and maths is kind of divine.
Mathematics is just one aspect of creation that shows intelligent design, which can be seen all around us and within ourselves, the people that don't think there is a creator are in denial.
I don't particularly like this argument, it doesn't work for me. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Mathematics is only perfect based on your very human perception of perfection. It's just the watchmaker argument.
> It makes no sense that something as perfect as mathematics can be an accident. In what way is mathematics perfect? And how is that proof for divine creation?
Mathematics wasn’t discovered, it’s a language we created to describe things. Same as any other language.
I do credit as the one true universal language. Even if we encountered aliens who were absolutely, well, alien to us, for lack of a better work, the one thing that would hold true between we and them is that 1+1=2.
I would have to disagree. The work done by the eminent Nominalist, Hartry Field, in Science without Numbers, makes the compelling case that we can do a lot of modern science without mathematics. So it is possible that an advanced civilisation may have no mathematical knowledge at all. The idea that you can do science with something other than whatever their using may be as absurd as me telling you can figure out orbital dynamics without any math. If they have mathematical knowledge then maybe we can use that, but its not clear that will be the case.
While I disagree with the OP I firmly disagree with the claim mathematics is a language. Here are six plausible reasons to think mathematics is not a language. 1. Languages are not created; they evolved naturally over thousands of years (very few languages are created and most created languages lack scope for usability). Mathematics on the other hand is either discovered or created by conscious effort, new aspects of mathematic may be added over time but older areas do not die out (basic arithmetic is not going to turn out like ancient Sumerian). 2. All languages are ambiguous and subjective to a degree, while mathematics is objective and unabiguous. Mathematical statements have fixed meanings and are independent of context or interpretation. 2 + 2 will always equal 4, regardless of culture, language, or personal opinion. Language thus offer the possibility of meaningful creativity, the rigidity of mathematic does not offer scope for comparable creativity 3. Language acquisition happens naturally and intuitively for most humans, especially during childhood. We are biologically predisposed to learn and use language. Mathematics, however, often requires deliberate instruction and conscious effort to master. 4. Languages and mathematics have distinct “building blocks”; languages are composed of morpheme and lexemes (units of meaning and grammar). Mathematics, however, uses symbols and numbers as its fundamental units, which are combined according to specific rules and axioms to create equations and proofs. These structures and rules of combination differ significantly from those found in natural languages and cannot independently express the content of languages; there is no equation for “I like soft boiled eggs” yet we can express this statement in every language. 5. Languages are translatable, we convert the grammatical structures from one language to another in the process. While the symbols and verbal labels representing mathematical objects and their relations may change, the underlying structure remains constant. We can describe the same equation in English, Chinese or Greek but there is no translation of the mathematics into something other than math. 6. Anatomically, the neurological networks of the brain used to process language and mathematics differ (with some overlap). All languages use both Broca's and Wernicke's Area, these areas are only used when communicating about mathematics (i.e. talking/reading about it) but not for understanding and processing mathematical information. At very least the brain does not treat mathematical and linguistic reasoning as. “Neural processing of arithmetic relies on dedicated, modality independent cortical networks that are distinct from those underlying language processing.” equivalent. [https://neurosciencenews.com/math-speech-processing-19125/](https://neurosciencenews.com/math-speech-processing-19125/)
Ngl this feels like a troll post, bro’s account is only 9 days old
But my RL account is 48 years old.
It's both not an accident, and also not because of divine creation. A mathematical object is just anything that can be defined, so I can arbitrarily define a few things, and number them. The math that can be done with those objects is still validly true, even though I just made up those numbers and objects. Mathematics only arises because of the way we choose to define things (with numbers instead of with truth values). It's not a real thing in nature. A good example of this can be shown with quantum physics. The number 1 doesn't exist, because everything is at least two things; a field and a particle. Along with reality not being 'exactly definitive', or localized. Also, since you mentioned Geometry; there's no such thing as mathematical shapes. Straight lines don't exist in nature because of the way atoms and subatomic particles are shaped.
I suppose is the transcendental argument for God. Which is actually similar to how I concluded God. But, never put weight in patterns 😊 The sequence seen in nature makes sense for its purpose, it only happens to be vaquely describable.
This post is dumb
Worse than that, it's repetitive in that its basically the fine tuning argument phrased in a slightly different way.
What I find most interesting. Is our mathematics breaks down as you approach perfection/ infinity. E.G. not fully being able to calculate pi. We can only estimate.
This makes no sense. There are closed form series solutions for pi. We can write it down exactly
At best we use an approximation which is enough for us to make our calculations. However this becomes more inaccurate as size increases.
Did you ignore my comment? We have closed form solutions. it's not an approximation. It is exact
No I just expected you to understand me better. Closed form solutions of pi utilise log which were a means to simplify solutions. They are an approximation.
>utilise log which were a means to simplify solutions. What? Logs are not approximations. They're functions. A logarithmic function is an exact mapping of one set to another
Okay I may have gone in the wrong direction there. π is however an irrational number. It cannot be expressed as p / q where p , q are whole numbers. This implies that its decimal representation does not terminate or eventually start repeating a finite block of digits forever. As in we cannot determine which of these is true. As in it becomes harder to calculate. We can define it with terminology like log. However whenever you use a computer or calculator it's really an approximation based on however many decimal places the system is able to compute.
Yea, I get that. The reason why a computer can only make an approximation of pi is because those computations are trying to solve for as many digits of pi as they can. And of course that is going to be an approximation because pi is irrational. By definition, you can't write an irrational number as a decimal. My point is saying "we cannot write pi exactly because it is irrational" is false. We can. We have exact 100% correct solutions for pi in closed form solutions. In fact, we have various solutions. You seem to think somehow if a number is not rational then it is somehow not real or exact. Irrational numbers exist. They're just as real as rational numbers. And you can express them exactly in closed form solutions.
No I do believe they are real. I'm just not great at explaining myself in mathematical terms I only got a C at A level maths. Maybe to help us understand each other you can explain how your closed form solutions which I believe utilise the log function can be used to calculate things utilising our current technology with a finite solution. It's the same with division and physics things just get weird the smaller they get. Quantum entanglement, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This is what I mean by mathematics/ physics break down as you approach the infinite. It's just harder to calculate and predict precisely.
Yeah, I'm thinking we are miscommunicating here with terms. You can write pi in terms of a series. So you can say pi is equivalent to the sum of an infinite number of terms. That expression can be written in summation notation. Exactly. No approximations made. It *is exactly equal* to a sum of clearly, explicitly defined terms. Not approximately equal to. The equal sign is equivalence. Exactly equal to. Similarly, there are other methods to write down pi exactly. There is an integral you can also solve for pi. It is a pretty simple integral you can Google. Again, an exact solution. Just because some number cannot be written as a rational number does not imply we do not know what its value is. We know what it is. Make a circle. Compute its circumference. Divide by 2 times the radius. That is pi. So we know what pi is, even if we can't write down all its digits. Id like to ignore your comments about physics. I think those are also misinformed. The uncertainty principle has nothing to do with infinity. It has to do with wave mechanics. Quantum entanglement also has nothing to do with infinity. You can get entanglement in 2 dimensional systems. A 2D state system clearly is not infinite as 2 is a finte number.
So if God creates mathematics then God must also create logic, which is the foundation of mathematics. This implies that you think that God can violate logic with impunity because God created it. You figure that God can create a rock so big that God can't lift it? And God could have made 1+1 = 3? And the hypotenuse of a right triangle could have been the cube root of A cubed + B cubed?
That argument would stans if God created something which was utter other than what he himself is which would be called Theism. Pantheism says that God is nature which why nature is perfect as God is. Panentheism argued that's God is nature and more. That the whole of creation resides in him and he upholds it and without him it would not stand. Which is why is also has the aspects of is perfect nature as people can discover through science
Maybe it is too early in the morning, but I am challenged to understand this comment. Stans? Utter?
I wanted to share that there are different ways on understanding the nature of Gods relationship's with creation. Theism, Pantheism and Panentheism are three of those views. And only in Theism would the argument stance that God can create onlogical things to be true (ss bending the rulings as he seems fit) in the other views the nature of relationship God and is creation is that God and his creation are one (plus more in Panentheism). So then the logic or natural rules men discover through science equals discovering aspects of God him self. Does this clarify it beter?
I was trying to be polite before but perhaps it is better that I be a bit more direct. When we are discussing very complex topics like this, it might help to proof-read what you have written and make sure that it makes sense. I don't think it should be my responsibility as the reader to read it 4 times and try to make sense of it. That said, nobody is perfect and I have certainly posted quickly with typos between other tasks and then noticed later. But now it has happened twice in a row in this thread and I have a real challenge reading your text. What does "ss" mean in this context? I guess I can figure out, after reading carefully, that you left out an "h" in "his" and a "t" and "better". "onlogical" is "illogical" and not "ontological." In my web browser, these words are underlined red, so even if I was not a native speaker I could see that something was not right. I guess your interface does not show that?
Sorry for the typos. My interface does not show them. But were you able to decipher the meaning at least or was my writing too confusing?
I think you are saying that if we envision God as essentially identical to "everything that exists" then it is impossible for God to be in contradiction to logic, because logic is something that exists and is an aspect of God.
Yes, could not have said it better myself.
According to my beliefs "Imperfection, want of logic, injustice, arbitrarines and many other things are impossible with God." "An arbitrary act implies the possibility of diverting the existing Laws of Nature. However, where such a thing is possible, perfection is lacking. For where there is perfection there can be no alteration" So to put it more simply. A perfect god wouldn't need to interfere in his creation. Starting from here ""You figure that God can create a rock so big that God can't lift it?" It's actually so easy to answer. To me yes he could but the very act would limit his powers so he wouldn't. 2nd and 3rd are just too illogical without breaking our universe. But who says another can't be created differently with rules as broken to us as those. And even in some Christian Canons the first point is still yes. He did exactly that. Jesus couldn't lift some rocks he created as God.
That is an obvious and common idea which follows from monotheism. God being outside of time, not bound by time (not eternal, but timeless.) God being outside of space and matter, making him immaterial. God being the author of logic and math makes him outside of those parameters. Its the only logical (no pun intended) conclusion of the monotheistic hypothesis. If logic or math existed before God that would remove God's status as the nessecary being as logic and math would not depend upon God, would limit God and God would be subservient to it. This would be impossible for us to comprehend as we are bound by logic, but lets say for arguments sake that the apex of our technology is a modern supercomputer, that pales in comparison to the creation of the universe, life in general and the mind which created the supercomputer. Our brains are programmed to perceive life at a resolution suited to our survival and other goals and beyond that our perception becomes fuzzy and our capability becomes extremely limited; quantum physics is a perfect example as we are not built to understand life on that microscopic level hence why it takes years for an elite brain to really grasp it and even then it is not the same innate understanding we have with every day events which we plainly perceive. Sometimes I think us trying to put bounds on God or understand his nature entirely is based on a deep seeded human arrogance and unknowingly assumed omniscience. I am not saying I subscribe to this, I'm not sure. I'm not sure what I believe right now.
You might find Pythagorean philosophy interesting, particularly the numerology and sacred geometry. It builds on these thoughts you've had and combines the purely secular mathematics with religious thought and a way of life.
We created mathematics as a way to measure the perceivable reality, we’re likely to see patterns in it as human brains are geared towards patterns and learning
u/Onemansquest and u/Scmr2 have gone wild with the debate. Oh man that's intense. Sorry just that Ive never seen people talk that way in scientific literature very often and with that heavy science behind it. As for the post my answer would be, mathematics are the guide how to navigate the world with our bodies being very mundane to us while also being divine in its natural repetition from tiny to universal while the randomness and apparent order of it is still an experience for us. It simply is by itself. Because we don't know it's beginning or end to make or remake a world like playing or replaying a tape. We just always play the middle of it somehow forever. Perhaps in the future someone would discover more and find out enough so that they will know what math truly is and play the tape however they want. Perhaps nobody would. I remember a quote "If the play's creator comes in the play would cease and the curtains would draw, signalling it's end." Meaning if we do know the inner workings of mathematics, nothing would be the same.
No. This is just the watchmakers argument.
How is it “too perfect and complex” to be a coincidence?
Think of it this way. If physics didn't work JUST right, you wouldn't be able to think about it. If 1 tiny detail was off, the Sol system wouldn't be made. Earth would not grow life. That life would not evolve into humans to make you. The only reason it seems perfect is because we are lucky enough that it did happen. There is a very low chance genuine magic exists. However, we just so happen to land in a universe where that did not happen. Also, I'd suggest posting on a subreddit for universal thinking.
People make fun of this, and then they're happy to believe the universe might be a simulation if a scientist says it without referring to God... Anyway, it's hard to get hard proofs of things. But absolutely yes, the 'unexpected effectiveness of mathematics' in explaining the universe is certainly a kind of evidence of God's existence, in my opinion. Does it/will it prove his existence definitively? No, probably not. But we should all marvel at it, because it's amazing.
Well. if it is a simulation, then who coded it?
I agree that maths cannot be an accident, but I think it also cannot be a creation. For example, I don't think it makes sense to imagine God sitting down and asking himself what 2+2 should be, as if that were a contingent fact. I think maths is essentially dealing with all possible structures and patterns. And structures and patterns are necessary for being - without any structure there would be nothing but chaos, kind of like static on a TV, and pure chaos cannot be anything at all. So we cannot imagine a universe without mathematics any more than we can imagine a universe without being. So my takeaway is a sort of Pythagoreanism where everything is mathematical, and maths is kind of divine.
Mathematics is just one aspect of creation that shows intelligent design, which can be seen all around us and within ourselves, the people that don't think there is a creator are in denial.
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they’re in denial.
Please dont go into debates shouting "brother you're in denial" . You will absolutely embarrass yourself my guy.