 As-salamu alaikum, welcome to the beliefs of Islam with me Hasan Hadi. In today's episode, we will talk about the argument for God from the mathematical reality. As a matter of fact, some may find this argument to be one of the other, more random and abstract argument for God's existence. It certainly seems confusing to believe that mathematics could have a role in demonstrating that God exists, particularly given that mathematics plays such an important role in contemporary scientific research, and most scientists within the western world, at the very least, admit to a form of agnosticism in regards to the equation of God's existence. Nonetheless, it's for this reason, namely, science's key dependency on mathematical precision, that this particular proof is all the more relevant and crucial. For if the atheistic materialist, naturalist, worldly view fails to adequately account for contemporary mathematical knowledge, and our knowledge of where the mathematics derive their true value, then ultimately they fancy it another absurdity in their worldly view, which requires explanation in the first place. Now, Herman Welle famously defined mathematics as the science of the infinite, said theory combined with the predicate calculus provides the foundations of mathematics. The ultimate goal is to describe the secreture of the mathematical universe, emphasizing systems of internal consistency and proof. Modern equations imply other equations, membership in one set implies membership in others, addition implies subtraction and so on. In a system with internal relationships, such as the number 4's relation to 2, all of the relations must be consistent in order for any of them to be consistent. Now, 2 plus 2 equals 4, because 1 plus 1 equals 2, and 4 minus 2 equals 2, and so on. So in a system of infinite internal relations, the infinite must be actual, rather than potential. Now, mathematical objects also appear to be inherently mental objects, what else could they be? 2 plus 2 doesn't transform into 4, 2 million doesn't have any more mass than 2. The existence of a number is independent of the existence of a particular instantiation of its properties, namely, if I raise the symbol 9 from a chalkboard, or smash two apples into sauce, I haven't affected the number 9 at all, but if numbers are mental objects, which are numbers on an actual infinite set, this fundamental requires the existence of an infinite mind, where they inherit the mind of an eternal omniscient God. 2 plus 2 equals 4, only if God exists. Now, philosopher of mathematics, Penelope Maddi, asks in his book Defending the Oximes on the Philosophical Foundations of Set Theory, he asks the following question, Can the naturalist account for the application of mathematics without regarding it as true? A contemporary pure mathematics works in application by providing the empirical scientist with a wide range of abstract tools. The scientist uses these models of a cannonball's path, or the electromagnetic field or curved space time, which he takes to resemble the physical phenomenon in some rough ways in order to depart from it in others. The applied mathematician labors to understand the idealizations, simplifications and approximations involved in these deployments of these abstract structures. He, however, strives as best he can to show how and why. A given model resembles the world closely enough for the particular purposes at hand. Now, on all this, the scientist never asserts the existence of the abstract model. He simply holds that the world is like the model in some respects, not in others. For this, the model need only be well described, just as one might illuminate a given social situation by comparing it to an imaginary or mythological one, marking the similarities and dissimilarities. Some naturalists have tried to respond that mathematical objects do not really exist outside of the mind of a human and that human minds may re-recognize them as they are not physical. In our response to such an absurdity, it would be pointed out that such a view leaves radical consequences, namely, as summarized by a theistic philosopher. He says the following. Now, if everything with the brain woke up there tomorrow, how much would 2 plus 2 equal? If you simply answered 4, according to the naturalists, you would be wrong. All the numbers would have died with our brains. Moreover, if you were riding in a car with me, when all the brains in the world died, then there wouldn't be two of us there afterward. We can project right now that there wouldn't be two of us in the car after the sudden global brain death, because we still have working brains. But after it happens, there won't be two dead bodies in the car anymore. The dead bodies would be there and there wouldn't be two of them. But there couldn't actually be two of them because there aren't any numbers anymore. The clocks will keep running, but there won't be any numbers to correspond with the passage of time. The billions of stars will still be there, but there won't be billions of them anymore as well. The naturalist view is an absurd groupthink meets metaphysical solipsism. In this regard, the naturalist view is an absurd groupthink meets metaphysical solipsism. Meanwhile, it remains painfully obvious that numbers and mathematics transcend our brains, as demonstrated by the existence of actual infiniteses of mental objects. That was for today. Until we meet next episode, thank you very much indeed, and as-salamu alaikum warahmatullahi wa barakatuh.