God and the Number “i”

08 May

Somebody, some time ago, used the imaginary mathematical constant i as proof that the existence of God is possible and can be understood in human terms.

The square of the imaginary unit 'i' is equal to negative-one.

The number i, for those who don’t know, is an imaginary, impossible number. It is mathematically defined as the square root of –1 (actually it’s defined as i² = –1, which is the proper way). We all know that negative numbers don’t have square roots. Just as we are unable to divide by zero, we are unable to determine the square root of a negative number.

While i is impossible and exists outside of our one-dimensional number system, we can still define it and include it in equations and formulas. That, they say, is the same with God. While we can’t see God, he exists outside our realm of existence, and is not directly observable. Just like i, God’s work can be observed. He can’t be quantified in our human terms of understanding, but he exists.

That’s when I start to wonder about the origins of i. Where did i come from? Well, as it turns out, imaginary numbers were defined in 1572 by Italian mathematician Rafael Bombelli. That’s right, man invented i. The number i is a concept that was created by humans to help understand various mathematical concepts. Imaginary numbers, like gods, are simply a realm of constants and figures that was devised by mankind in order to fit their needs and to fill a void of some sort.

Imaginary numbers exist — while not quantifiable, they can still be defined and utilized — but only in the sense that human beings defined them out of nowhere. They cannot be observed in nature other than through our own application of them.

This is just one of the many examples I like to bring up, of the fact that whatever one can say in favor of the existence of a god, the same thing can also be used against the existence of a god (or something similar can be used against the argument in favor of a god).

I love math — absolutely love it — and I was thinking about this randomly today and thought I’d share it with all of you (assuming more than two or three people read this).


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply


  1. Khay

    March 3, 2016 at 3:45 am

    We are deluged with cmetonms and don’t have time to respond to each one individually. What you are reading is a stock (cut-and-paste) response to your comment. If you provide the context for your comment in another comment, we may respond individually.

  2. Siddhi

    October 3, 2017 at 6:43 am

    Yeah and what concept you are using against god can same be use to prove it. Its true that man invented imaginary nos. But its also true that man invented god. Thats why such people can compare god with man. They say god can be non existent and still can exist. It means we too only make up a figure like god in our mind just for fitting our life calculations. Its not necessary that he even exist. Do u get that?

  3. Siddhi

    October 3, 2017 at 6:48 am

    You yourself stated that ‘Imaginary numbers does exist.’ Those who say god can be like imaginary nos. which exists even being non existent are the people who are atheist and believers at the same time. They satisfy both sides with help of maths. They believe that God exists as imaginary numbers exists in our maths and they even believe that God don’t exist as its how they are defined by man.

  4. Siddhi

    October 3, 2017 at 6:49 am

    They are the people who are like electrons and can show a dual nature at the same time by being a particle as well as a wave. This theory supports duality.

  5. Siddhi

    October 3, 2017 at 6:51 am

    And dual nature is generally not accepted in normal human scale but yes it is accepted in quantum mechanics.

  6. Mary Vaquera

    February 5, 2018 at 2:51 pm

    Allmath Allmath focuses on math that we’ll use for the remainder of our lives by providing a great deal
    of pages of fun math sites .
    But the distinction is, I think, purely one of the that means we
    attach to the relevant words (particularly “science”).