Mathematical Proof Of God

[Guest nat]

 

True, as x/x ->0 = 1. This all applies to the indeterminate forms which can be anything depending on the situation. Nonetheless, 1/x (x->0) and 1/x (x-> infinity) are not indeterminate.

The first heads to infinity and the second heads to zero.

The first heads to +/- infinity. x->0+ only heads to +infinity. x->0- heads to -infinity. (as I've pointed out earlier)

 

Always. The same is true with any number in the numerator (other than 0/0 and infinity/infinity).

You can see in the video how he takes x->0 and makes it a denominator of 1/x->0 and uses the denominator as infinity.

Only if you have a constant. If you have a function, there are many other end results. Like I pointed out earlier, sin(x)/x is 1. If I remember right, even π (pi) can be written as a limit function, which is a transcedental and irrational number. Just to focus on c/x or any derivative form of that is useless. There are an infinite amount of function sets different than c/x.

 

But I understand, it's a fun topic and interesting to see the end behavior of functions. If I was younger and had a better brain, I'd remember more from all the math classes I took.

 

We are not disagreeing here. Indeterminate forms are what they are, and they can be anything. Constants/x->infinity head to 0, and constants/x->0+ head to +infinity and ->0- to negative infinity. This shows how infinity and 0 are true opposites. And they are transandental, mysterious, and so different than other numbers in that x*0=0 and x*infinity=infinity. And when you put these unusual forces together, infinity*0, you get neither infinity or 0, but anything. And this is an amazing and compelling platform for the ponderables of life when you think about the infinite source and nothing and everything in-between.

 

That is what I have been trying to get accross, with a bit of math and a bit of philosophy, 

[pratt]

so this is NOT a mathematicalroof of god but it can be....

 

so this is NOT exactly a math discussion but similar to what NAT's concept of god, which may or may not be OT YHWH...

 

so here, we can mix a little of math, a little of philosophy, and wala,,,,, you get something which looks like Nat's concept of god,,,

 

ok,,, after 11 pages, i get that

[ContraBardus]

I love this argument. Someone used to confusing others by using complicated psuedo math to justify his position in a way that they can't verify or deny, [winning arguments with confusion, not logic]...meets a forum where a great many members actually know math and can call his bluff.

 

It's wonderful to see, and interesting to read.

 

I should really hang out here more often.

 

[Ouroboros]

We are not disagreeing here. Indeterminate forms are what they are, and they can be anything. Constants/x->infinity head to 0, and constants/x->0+ head to +infinity and ->0- to negative infinity. This shows how infinity and 0 are true opposites. And they are transandental, mysterious, and so different than other numbers in that x*0=0 and x*infinity=infinity. And when you put these unusual forces together, infinity*0, you get neither infinity or 0, but anything. And this is an amazing and compelling platform for the ponderables of life when you think about the infinite source and nothing and everything in-between.

 

That is what I have been trying to get accross, with a bit of math and a bit of philosophy,

Ok. I think I understand what you're getting at, and there's probably nothing I can contribute to that discussion.

[Voice]

The challenge then, would be to find characteristics of God that are natural and that everyone agrees upon (like laws of nature), things that can be described with math, and start writing the math.  Most of it will wash out, but who knows, you may come out with something novel that people will want to develop on.

Most religions have things in common.  What are those things?  Can they be described mathematically?  If so, they could be useful as components in the equations.  I noticed you're going for the simple, eloquent equation, the dream of mathematicians, but people like complexities too, so parts of it could be derived from other more involved things.  Probability matrices, dimension, anything, everything.

When I write singularity descriptions they look like a combination of math and music.  They require scalars that I had to integrate from sources outside of standard mathematical notation, symbols used solely to establish magnitude, for example the universally recognized circle with a dot in the center for Sol, and the circle with a cross in the center for Terra.  These are notes with specific values.  Not exactly conventional, but damned practical for describing singularities.  Point is, at some stage you will have to get creative.

[Guest nat]

I love this argument. Someone used to confusing others by using complicated psuedo math to justify his position in a way that they can't verify or deny, [winning arguments with confusion, not logic]...meets a forum where a great many members actually know math and can call his bluff.

 

It's wonderful to see, and interesting to read.

 

I should really hang out here more often.

 

 

Seems to be many annoying people like you. All you do is trash what I am saying without any logical argument on any point. All you are doing is name calling. I have proven the math over and over, and I have been making philosophical points based on the math. It is not pseudo math. Because many could not see beyond the limitations of the simplified version of the math, I had to use a more complicated form to show the same thing and bring out the same point. Let's see if you are really brave. Let's see if you can challenge me directly on any mathematical or philosophical point. Or will you admit that you rely on what other people are saying just so you can name call. Sad sad sad.

[Guest nat]

so this is NOT a mathematicalroof of god but it can be....

 

so this is NOT exactly a math discussion but similar to what NAT's concept of god, which may or may not be OT YHWH...

 

so here, we can mix a little of math, a little of philosophy, and wala,,,,, you get something which looks like Nat's concept of god,,,

 

ok,,, after 11 pages, i get that

If you understood what I was saying, it might enhance your experience. If only you took the time to understand rather than to close yourself off. And again more name calling without a serious challenge at all.

[Bhim]

Bhim,

 

I may have gotten a head of myself concerning the math as accepted. Most commonly, it is not accepted that division by 0 is the actual infinity. Your point of negative and positive is one reason. Others say because infinity is not a number. Yet, there is no full fledged proof. There are still many places that you will see it said that /0=infinity or something very close to it, including limits etc. The negative and positive issue is not a complete disproof either. Just because someone says that its no good is not proof. Even einstein made up laws to fit his need (think cosmological constant). Since 0 is neither positive or negative it makes good sense that it approaches both infinities. It can be either one or perhaps both. 

When i researched a while back, I remember x/infinity =0 was more conventional. I may be wrong.

I think you misunderstand. This isn't a case of mathematicians holding stubbornly to some rigid orthodoxy. It isn't accepted that division by zero is infinity for the same reason it's accepted that a statement can't contradict itself. Mathematics is essentially an exercise in formal logic. You start with a few simple axioms and build up the rest. Infinity isn't part of that formalism. If you want to make it so, be my guest. But do you really think you're the first to come up with this idea? Infinity isn't a part of any number system because it isn't useful. You can't simultaneously admit to not being very skilled in math and trying to make a major contribution to mathematics. That's like trying to sequence a genome when you've never taken intro biology.

 

I said 2 times and divided by 0 might cancel out the 0. I am not completely sure on this point, but either way I think I was correct on this issue. You said 0/0 does not = 0*infinity, and I say it does. In this case, I believe even conventional mathematics is on my side, because both 0/0 and 0*infinity are indeterminate forms.

But you see, I am completely sure on this point. Two things being indeterminate forms doesn't make them the same type of indeterminate form. And you're forgetting that none of these things are actual numbers. You're confusing functions with numbers.

 

Conventional mathematics isn't on your side. If it were, you'd likely find at least one person on this board who agrees with you, don't you think? And it'd probably be me, because unlike most people here I am both a theist and trained in math! What does it tell you when your most likely ally says that you are entirely wrong?

 

In any case, bhim, even if x/0 is not infinity, from a logical standpoint and even an accepted one, it is something similar to infinity and it can also be worded in a slightly different way where you can use infinity even conventionally. Moreover, since infinity is beyond our grasp and reason, it makes complete sense that things related to it are undefined. Saying things like you can't divide by 0 just avoids the main point, without thinking about what is really involved. I was getting into the inner abstract of the issue, even if I was not following the exact line. Humans have this capacity to into a deeper truth through applied logic. If you really think through the analogy, you will find a deeper truth in it even if the math is not completely perfect.

I am a bit stubborn and still think that greater truths lie behind these matters. And in time I hope mathematicians will break out of their easy way out of just saying you can't divide by zero. In that case, i will have been ahead of my time, and I won't be the only one. By the deeper truth is there regardless.

The mathematical concept of infinity makes perfect sense to me. Again, you're trying to extract profundity from the mundane.

 

If you understood what I was saying, it might enhance your experience. If only you took the time to understand rather than to close yourself off. And again more name calling without a serious challenge at all.

I tend to be more hesitant to say offensive things than most, but I can completely see his sentiment. Not trying to offend, but you have to understand that if we simply judge the arguments you're making, this is all very reminiscent of a person coming in here and telling us the earth is flat, and then ignoring all the evidence we present to the contrary.  Everything being discussed here is stuff we all learn in high school, meaning the logic against your arguments is very well-founded.  Among high school math teachers, even hardcore creationist evangelicals would agree with us that you're wrong.

 

Now, you wouldn't be the first person to question conventional wisdom.  People like Newton, Galileo, and Einstein did it.  But before you count yourself among these people, consider that these men were trained in science and had good arguments to back up their claims.  Again, don't take this the wrong way, but your arguments are so poor that to call them wrong would be to demean honest errors made by real scientists.  Lots of mathematicians write out pages of rigorous proofs, consult other mathematicians works, and propose new theorems, only to be proven wrong.  You didn't even make that kind of effort; you just spent a few minutes toying with the idea, put it before people trained in mathematics, and then dismissed our academic criticisms without even considering the merit of what we said.  Real mathematicians submit papers to peer reviewed journals, and are forced to answer the criticisms of their colleagues before their papers are accepted for publication.  Now, ex-C is no peer-reviewed journal, but you didn't respond to even our informal criticisms.  You merely dismissed them and still claimed to be correct.  Do you not see this as an act of great intellectual arrogance?  I'm not trying to insult you, but I cannot make positive statements about your claims in the name of courtesy.  You're a nice person and have been courteous in all your posts, and I hope that I have responded in kind (and will continue to do so).  But that doesn't mean that what you're saying is right.  It's flat out wrong.  Not possibly wrong or partially correct.  Completely wrong and without merit.

 

If you don't believe me, I'd invite you to submit your ideas by email to a math professor at some nearby university.  Most are probably going to be too busy writing grant proposals, but in most departments there are usually a few people who recognize that part of a professor's job is public outreach, and that they owe a certain fraction of their time to the taxpayers who fund their federal grants.  Go ahead and write to a math professor.  Unless you find a fraud at some Christian school, he'll tell you the same thing I have.  In fact, I imagine that even most math professors at Christian schools would say the same thing as me.  If you do as I've suggested, I think you'll find that nothing you've written thus far even comes close to the standard of academic peer review.

[Voice]

I tend to be more hesitant to say offensive things than most, but I can completely see his sentiment. Not trying to offend, but you have to understand that if we simply judge the arguments you're making, this is all very reminiscent of a person coming in here and telling us the earth is flat, and then ignoring all the evidence we present to the contrary.  Everything being discussed here is stuff we all learn in high school, meaning the logic against your arguments is very well-founded.  Among high school math teachers, even hardcore creationist evangelicals would agree with us that you're wrong.

 

Now, you wouldn't be the first person to question conventional wisdom.  People like Newton, Galileo, and Einstein did it.  But before you count yourself among these people, consider that these men were trained in science and had good arguments to back up their claims.  Again, don't take this the wrong way, but your arguments are so poor that to call them wrong would be to demean honest errors made by real scientists.  Lots of mathematicians write out pages of rigorous proofs, consult other mathematicians works, and propose new theorems, only to be proven wrong.  You didn't even make that kind of effort; you just spent a few minutes toying with the idea, put it before people trained in mathematics, and then dismissed our academic criticisms without even considering the merit of what we said.  Real mathematicians submit papers to peer reviewed journals, and are forced to answer the criticisms of their colleagues before their papers are accepted for publication.  Now, ex-C is no peer-reviewed journal, but you didn't respond to even our informal criticisms.  You merely dismissed them and still claimed to be correct.  Do you not see this as an act of great intellectual arrogance?  I'm not trying to insult you, but I cannot make positive statements about your claims in the name of courtesy.  You're a nice person and have been courteous in all your posts, and I hope that I have responded in kind (and will continue to do so).  But that doesn't mean that what you're saying is right.  It's flat out wrong.  Not possibly wrong or partially correct.  Completely wrong and without merit.

 

If you don't believe me, I'd invite you to submit your ideas by email to a math professor at some nearby university.  Most are probably going to be too busy writing grant proposals, but in most departments there are usually a few people who recognize that part of a professor's job is public outreach, and that they owe a certain fraction of their time to the taxpayers who fund their federal grants.  Go ahead and write to a math professor.  Unless you find a fraud at some Christian school, he'll tell you the same thing I have.  In fact, I imagine that even most math professors at Christian schools would say the same thing as me.  If you do as I've suggested, I think you'll find that nothing you've written thus far even comes close to the standard of academic peer review.

 

 

Bhim, what are your thoughts on the idea itself of describing God/Gods mathematically, despite weak opening arguments?

[Guest nat]

 

Bhim,

 

I may have gotten a head of myself concerning the math as accepted. Most commonly, it is not accepted that division by 0 is the actual infinity. Your point of negative and positive is one reason. Others say because infinity is not a number. Yet, there is no full fledged proof. There are still many places that you will see it said that /0=infinity or something very close to it, including limits etc. The negative and positive issue is not a complete disproof either. Just because someone says that its no good is not proof. Even einstein made up laws to fit his need (think cosmological constant). Since 0 is neither positive or negative it makes good sense that it approaches both infinities. It can be either one or perhaps both. 

When i researched a while back, I remember x/infinity =0 was more conventional. I may be wrong.

I think you misunderstand. This isn't a case of mathematicians holding stubbornly to some rigid orthodoxy. It isn't accepted that division by zero is infinity for the same reason it's accepted that a statement can't contradict itself. Mathematics is essentially an exercise in formal logic. You start with a few simple axioms and build up the rest. Infinity isn't part of that formalism. If you want to make it so, be my guest. But do you really think you're the first to come up with this idea? Infinity isn't a part of any number system because it isn't useful. You can't simultaneously admit to not being very skilled in math and trying to make a major contribution to mathematics. That's like trying to sequence a genome when you've never taken intro biology.

 

I said 2 times and divided by 0 might cancel out the 0. I am not completely sure on this point, but either way I think I was correct on this issue. You said 0/0 does not = 0*infinity, and I say it does. In this case, I believe even conventional mathematics is on my side, because both 0/0 and 0*infinity are indeterminate forms.

But you see, I am completely sure on this point. Two things being indeterminate forms doesn't make them the same type of indeterminate form. And you're forgetting that none of these things are actual numbers. You're confusing functions with numbers.

 

Conventional mathematics isn't on your side. If it were, you'd likely find at least one person on this board who agrees with you, don't you think? And it'd probably be me, because unlike most people here I am both a theist and trained in math! What does it tell you when your most likely ally says that you are entirely wrong?

 

In any case, bhim, even if x/0 is not infinity, from a logical standpoint and even an accepted one, it is something similar to infinity and it can also be worded in a slightly different way where you can use infinity even conventionally. Moreover, since infinity is beyond our grasp and reason, it makes complete sense that things related to it are undefined. Saying things like you can't divide by 0 just avoids the main point, without thinking about what is really involved. I was getting into the inner abstract of the issue, even if I was not following the exact line. Humans have this capacity to into a deeper truth through applied logic. If you really think through the analogy, you will find a deeper truth in it even if the math is not completely perfect.

I am a bit stubborn and still think that greater truths lie behind these matters. And in time I hope mathematicians will break out of their easy way out of just saying you can't divide by zero. In that case, i will have been ahead of my time, and I won't be the only one. By the deeper truth is there regardless.

The mathematical concept of infinity makes perfect sense to me. Again, you're trying to extract profundity from the mundane.

 

If you understood what I was saying, it might enhance your experience. If only you took the time to understand rather than to close yourself off. And again more name calling without a serious challenge at all.

I tend to be more hesitant to say offensive things than most, but I can completely see his sentiment. Not trying to offend, but you have to understand that if we simply judge the arguments you're making, this is all very reminiscent of a person coming in here and telling us the earth is flat, and then ignoring all the evidence we present to the contrary.  Everything being discussed here is stuff we all learn in high school, meaning the logic against your arguments is very well-founded.  Among high school math teachers, even hardcore creationist evangelicals would agree with us that you're wrong.

 

Now, you wouldn't be the first person to question conventional wisdom.  People like Newton, Galileo, and Einstein did it.  But before you count yourself among these people, consider that these men were trained in science and had good arguments to back up their claims.  Again, don't take this the wrong way, but your arguments are so poor that to call them wrong would be to demean honest errors made by real scientists.  Lots of mathematicians write out pages of rigorous proofs, consult other mathematicians works, and propose new theorems, only to be proven wrong.  You didn't even make that kind of effort; you just spent a few minutes toying with the idea, put it before people trained in mathematics, and then dismissed our academic criticisms without even considering the merit of what we said.  Real mathematicians submit papers to peer reviewed journals, and are forced to answer the criticisms of their colleagues before their papers are accepted for publication.  Now, ex-C is no peer-reviewed journal, but you didn't respond to even our informal criticisms.  You merely dismissed them and still claimed to be correct.  Do you not see this as an act of great intellectual arrogance?  I'm not trying to insult you, but I cannot make positive statements about your claims in the name of courtesy.  You're a nice person and have been courteous in all your posts, and I hope that I have responded in kind (and will continue to do so).  But that doesn't mean that what you're saying is right.  It's flat out wrong.  Not possibly wrong or partially correct.  Completely wrong and without merit.

 

If you don't believe me, I'd invite you to submit your ideas by email to a math professor at some nearby university.  Most are probably going to be too busy writing grant proposals, but in most departments there are usually a few people who recognize that part of a professor's job is public outreach, and that they owe a certain fraction of their time to the taxpayers who fund their federal grants.  Go ahead and write to a math professor.  Unless you find a fraud at some Christian school, he'll tell you the same thing I have.  In fact, I imagine that even most math professors at Christian schools would say the same thing as me.  If you do as I've suggested, I think you'll find that nothing you've written thus far even comes close to the standard of academic peer review.

 

Bhim,

Unlike the others at least you make points of argument which can be debated. You do make a number of good points, but I still argue that you are wrong on a number of points. For starters, yes, there are rigorous methods of peer review etc that are needed for the advancement of mathematics and physics and everything else. But for goodness sake this is an online forum, not a university. Will you have all posters go through peer review just to make a contribution?

 

Secondly, you are incorrect about infinity *0 = 0/0. Since L'hopital's rule does not work for infinity * 0, it is converted into 0/0 or infinity/infinity first. And the conversion is very simple. X->0 is switched to a denominator of 1/x->0 to make it infinity, or x->infinity is made into a denominator 1/x->infinity to make it 0. This shows that the two are equal.and are simply converted in order to afterward use l'hopital's rule. I am surprised that you did not know this.

 

Furthermore, let's leave my stubbornness aside in my hope that Math will eventually accept that x/0 is infinity and x/infinity =0. Whether they do or not is irrelevant. The limitations stopping them from currently doing so are side issues that do not negate the essance of where the numbers are going. I showed this with how limits work. Did you not see the video where he puts 1/x->0 to make it infinity to then use L'hopitals rule?  When you do limits 1/x->0 is stated as infinity and 1/x->infinity is stated as zero. 

 

I was showing that infinity and 0 are different than all other numbers. This is true because anything *0 is 0 and anything times infinity is infinity. Along these lines I was showing, at least within the context of limits, that all numbers divided by 0 head to infinity and all numbers divided by infinity head towards 0. We see how infinity and 0 apply to all numbers equally.I went on to show how the two extremes multiplied by each other (infinity*0) is an indeterminate form, which can be anything. This is a mathematical fact. 

 

I then used all this a a platform of correlation to the infinite unknowable source of life, which through nothingness brought about everything.

 

i am sorry that you can't follow the logic nor see the correctness of the math. 

[Voice]

You guys have drafted an argument such that if written mathematically as a function of time, spent applied energies would approach infinity. 

[Guest nat]

In the last video, the gentleman converts the 0 part into infinity by dividing by 1/x->0 to make it infinity.

 

In this video, the gentleman takes the infinity side (csc x->0) and puts it in the denominator with a 1 over it to make it 0. He speaks this out clearly, but to simplify he makes it sin x, because 1/csc x = sin x.

 

We see clearly how infinity *0 is simply converted either into infinity/infinity (as in the last video) or 0/0 (as in this video).

 

We also see how in the context of limits 1/x->0 is infinity (either + or - depending on side) and 1/x->infinity is 0.

 

Not sure how much more I can do to prove that my math is correct.

 

please watch and learn.

 

[Guest nat]

You guys have drafted an argument such that if written mathematically as a function of time, spent applied energies would approach infinity. 

Because I (unintentionally) opened the thread with the loose use of proof of God instead of correlation to God.

 

Because i opened with a simplified version of the math not wanting to get into limits and l'hopital's rule.

 

Because many on this forum will hair split you and ridicule you to death if you are a believer.

 

That is why all hell broke loose on this thread.

 

But I will remain to defend myself.

 

Thank You. 

 

I thank those who were civil and those who were able to come to an agreement and those who came to my defense.

[Bhim]

Bhim, what are your thoughts on the idea itself of describing God/Gods mathematically, despite weak opening arguments?

 

Personally I think the argument would be more philosophical than mathematical. But since mathematics is basically a branch of philosophy, I suppose we could say that I find it theoretically possible to prove the existence of some God. Now as to your actual question of describing said God, I wouldn't even know where to begin! Since leaving Christianity, I've always held to the idea that you can't know of God's nature unless he reveals it to you. And even then, you certainly can't communicate that experience to anyone else, which is why I'm averse to any form of proselytism.

 

Don't know if that answers your question, but please feel free to ask for clarification.

 

Bhim,

Unlike the others at least you make points of argument which can be debated. You do make a number of good points, but I still argue that you are wrong on a number of points. For starters, yes, there are rigorous methods of peer review etc that are needed for the advancement of mathematics and physics and everything else. But for goodness sake this is an online forum, not a university. Will you have all posters go through peer review just to make a contribution?

Well you're right that this isn't a university. And that's precisely why most posters accept the idea of appeal to authority, even though it's technically a logical fallacy. When someone comes here and says they have some expertise in a particular subject, I tend to believe them. As a second level of cross-check I might verify what they say with another source such as Wikipedia, but the standards are pretty low compared to academia. And that's precisely why you can't simply expect someone to believe a non-standard theory. Because standards are so low on any online forum, people aren't going to believe you if you're saying something that a large number of experts disagree with.

 

Going back to the auto mechanic analogy, would you believe someone if they said you can put Vodka in your car and expect it to run? I have no idea if that would work or not, which is why I would check with an auto mechanic before doing it.

 

Secondly, you are incorrect about infinity *0 = 0/0. Since L'hopital's rule does not work for infinity * 0, it is converted into 0/0 or infinity/infinity first. And the conversion is very simple. X->0 is switched to a denominator of 1/x->0 to make it infinity, or x->infinity is made into a denominator 1/x->infinity to make it 0. This shows that the two are equal.and are simply converted in order to afterward use l'hopital's rule. I am surprised that you did not know this.

 

I'm not even sure where to begin here...

 

You may not know how many calculus problems I've done since high school in which I employ this very technique, so let me just say that at one time in my undergraduate career I knew how to prove that L'Hospital's rule is true.  When working with indeterminate forms, any function being manipulated always consists of real numbers.  As has been explained to you previously by myself and others, infinity can't be treated as a number and thus can't be algebraically manipulated.  If you'd like to reference a calculus textbook and cite a specific example, I'd be happy to take you through it.

 

Furthermore, let's leave my stubbornness aside in my hope that Math will eventually accept that x/0 is infinity and x/infinity =0. Whether they do or not is irrelevant. The limitations stopping them from currently doing so are side issues that do not negate the essance of where the numbers are going. I showed this with how limits work. Did you not see the video where he puts 1/x->0 to make it infinity to then use L'hopitals rule?  When you do limits 1/x->0 is stated as infinity and 1/x->infinity is stated as zero. 

 

I was showing that infinity and 0 are different than all other numbers. This is true because anything *0 is 0 and anything times infinity is infinity. Along these lines I was showing, at least within the context of limits, that all numbers divided by 0 head to infinity and all numbers divided by infinity head towards 0. We see how infinity and 0 apply to all numbers equally.I went on to show how the two extremes multiplied by each other (infinity*0) is an indeterminate form, which can be anything. This is a mathematical fact. 

 

I then used all this a a platform of correlation to the infinite unknowable source of life, which through nothingness brought about everything.

 

i am sorry that you can't follow the logic nor see the correctness of the math.

 

You're still mistaking rejection of inaccuracy for closed-mindedness.

 

I'm quite able to follow everything you've said.  I know that what you're saying is absolutely wrong.  This is not the same from misunderstanding.  I hope I'm not hitting too close to home, but let me provide an analogy that you may be able to relate to.  Christians say that when you (i.e. any Jew) read the Torah, a veil is over your eyes such that you cannot see the messiahship of Jesus in the pages of the words of God.  But when you turn to Jesus, the veil is supposedly removed (see 2 Corinthians, where this theology is espoused).  Christians would call you closed-minded for not believing in Jesus, and lament that you can't see the logic in their proofs that Jesus is God.  Forget that the Torah forbids the worship of any man as God.  Forget that the God of the Hebrews forbids human sacrifice of the form that Jesus asks you to embrace.  As far as they're concerned, you're just not getting it.  And they would condemn you to hell for it!

 

That's what's going on here.  You have an argument which I'm sure makes sense in your own mind, and thus to you we're all ignorant for not agreeing with you.  Not to indulge too much in the fallacy of guilt-by-association, but what you're employing here is Christian logic.  Please understand that just because we disagree with you doesn't mean that we are ignorant.  For that matter it doesn't even mean that our arguments have equal merit.  Our mathematical arguments are correct.  Yours are as wrong as the messiahship of Jesus.

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

 

You guys have drafted an argument such that if written mathematically as a function of time, spent applied energies would approach infinity. 

Because I (unintentionally) opened the thread with the loose use of proof of God instead of correlation to God.

 

Yes, you came in with loosely made arguments. Not just a simplified form of the math,  but loosely made arguments with assumptions involved and said proof of God. This is the first time in this entire post you've admitted this. If you would have corrected earlier instead of hiding your realization of error from us, we probably would back off a bit sooner.

[Ouroboros]

In mathematics, a proof is a demonstration that if some fundamental statements (axioms) are assumed to be true, then some mathematical statement is necessarily true.[1][2] Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments; a proof must demonstrate that a statement is always true (occasionally by listing all possible cases and showing that it holds in each), rather than enumerate many confirmatory cases. An unproven proposition that is believed to be true is known as a conjecture.

I can't see that's the case of this thread. The mathematical proof of God's existence has not been made.

[florduh]

Using math to prove god exists is all well and good, but I'd rather prove god using hamburgers. Cheeseburgers if you're orthodox.

 

Got a beef with that?

[Ravenstar]

Where's the beef!

[stryper]

Where's the beef!

 

 

Found it 

 

 

Let's meet the meat. 

[Ravenstar]

Oh.. thank goodness!  ;p

[midniterider]

 

 

"Infinity times zero is not nothing. It is undetermined. It can be anything."

 

Can it be cheese?

 

 

It can be cheese.

GO PACKERS!

 

 

:-)

[Voice]

 

 

You guys have drafted an argument such that if written mathematically as a function of time, spent applied energies would approach infinity. 

Because I (unintentionally) opened the thread with the loose use of proof of God instead of correlation to God.

 

Yes, you came in with loosely made arguments. Not just a simplified form of the math,  but loosely made arguments with assumptions involved and said proof of God. This is the first time in this entire post you've admitted this. If you would have corrected earlier instead of hiding your realization of error from us, we probably would back off a bit sooner.

 

I agree.  I think the best way for you to approach this discussion, nat, is not to refute anyone's discussion of your opening arguments or try to defend, but rather to listen with an open mind (let them be assholes if they must, don't take that personally, and don't fuel it by responding emotionally to it).  And don't mistake Bhim's arguments for his being an asshole.  He's not being one.  He's being straight from his educated point of view.  Listen to what everyone has to say, then see if it helps you refine your math in some way.

 

 

Bhim said something a few pages back about the process of how our work becomes published.  He forgot the part about how professors will take their students' work and publish it as their own.  That's a kick in the nuts.  Bastards.

[Guest nat]

 

 

You guys have drafted an argument such that if written mathematically as a function of time, spent applied energies would approach infinity. 

Because I (unintentionally) opened the thread with the loose use of proof of God instead of correlation to God.

 

Yes, you came in with loosely made arguments. Not just a simplified form of the math,  but loosely made arguments with assumptions involved and said proof of God. This is the first time in this entire post you've admitted this. If you would have corrected earlier instead of hiding your realization of error from us, we probably would back off a bit sooner.

 

This is not the first time. Go back and read. Almost from the start I clarified that I did not mean proof literally, and I have repeated that many times over. I am surprised that you just believe what you want to believe. I guess it is easier that way. Do you want me to go look over the posts and cite the post # for you?

[Guest nat]

 

Bhim, what are your thoughts on the idea itself of describing God/Gods mathematically, despite weak opening arguments?

 

Personally I think the argument would be more philosophical than mathematical. But since mathematics is basically a branch of philosophy, I suppose we could say that I find it theoretically possible to prove the existence of some God. Now as to your actual question of describing said God, I wouldn't even know where to begin! Since leaving Christianity, I've always held to the idea that you can't know of God's nature unless he reveals it to you. And even then, you certainly can't communicate that experience to anyone else, which is why I'm averse to any form of proselytism.

 

Don't know if that answers your question, but please feel free to ask for clarification.

 

Bhim,

Unlike the others at least you make points of argument which can be debated. You do make a number of good points, but I still argue that you are wrong on a number of points. For starters, yes, there are rigorous methods of peer review etc that are needed for the advancement of mathematics and physics and everything else. But for goodness sake this is an online forum, not a university. Will you have all posters go through peer review just to make a contribution?

Well you're right that this isn't a university. And that's precisely why most posters accept the idea of appeal to authority, even though it's technically a logical fallacy. When someone comes here and says they have some expertise in a particular subject, I tend to believe them. As a second level of cross-check I might verify what they say with another source such as Wikipedia, but the standards are pretty low compared to academia. And that's precisely why you can't simply expect someone to believe a non-standard theory. Because standards are so low on any online forum, people aren't going to believe you if you're saying something that a large number of experts disagree with.

 

Going back to the auto mechanic analogy, would you believe someone if they said you can put Vodka in your car and expect it to run? I have no idea if that would work or not, which is why I would check with an auto mechanic before doing it.

 

Secondly, you are incorrect about infinity *0 = 0/0. Since L'hopital's rule does not work for infinity * 0, it is converted into 0/0 or infinity/infinity first. And the conversion is very simple. X->0 is switched to a denominator of 1/x->0 to make it infinity, or x->infinity is made into a denominator 1/x->infinity to make it 0. This shows that the two are equal.and are simply converted in order to afterward use l'hopital's rule. I am surprised that you did not know this.

 

I'm not even sure where to begin here...

 

You may not know how many calculus problems I've done since high school in which I employ this very technique, so let me just say that at one time in my undergraduate career I knew how to prove that L'Hospital's rule is true.  When working with indeterminate forms, any function being manipulated always consists of real numbers.  As has been explained to you previously by myself and others, infinity can't be treated as a number and thus can't be algebraically manipulated.  If you'd like to reference a calculus textbook and cite a specific example, I'd be happy to take you through it.

 

Furthermore, let's leave my stubbornness aside in my hope that Math will eventually accept that x/0 is infinity and x/infinity =0. Whether they do or not is irrelevant. The limitations stopping them from currently doing so are side issues that do not negate the essance of where the numbers are going. I showed this with how limits work. Did you not see the video where he puts 1/x->0 to make it infinity to then use L'hopitals rule?  When you do limits 1/x->0 is stated as infinity and 1/x->infinity is stated as zero. 

 

I was showing that infinity and 0 are different than all other numbers. This is true because anything *0 is 0 and anything times infinity is infinity. Along these lines I was showing, at least within the context of limits, that all numbers divided by 0 head to infinity and all numbers divided by infinity head towards 0. We see how infinity and 0 apply to all numbers equally.I went on to show how the two extremes multiplied by each other (infinity*0) is an indeterminate form, which can be anything. This is a mathematical fact. 

 

I then used all this a a platform of correlation to the infinite unknowable source of life, which through nothingness brought about everything.

 

i am sorry that you can't follow the logic nor see the correctness of the math.

 

You're still mistaking rejection of inaccuracy for closed-mindedness.

 

I'm quite able to follow everything you've said.  I know that what you're saying is absolutely wrong.  This is not the same from misunderstanding.  I hope I'm not hitting too close to home, but let me provide an analogy that you may be able to relate to.  Christians say that when you (i.e. any Jew) read the Torah, a veil is over your eyes such that you cannot see the messiahship of Jesus in the pages of the words of God.  But when you turn to Jesus, the veil is supposedly removed (see 2 Corinthians, where this theology is espoused).  Christians would call you closed-minded for not believing in Jesus, and lament that you can't see the logic in their proofs that Jesus is God.  Forget that the Torah forbids the worship of any man as God.  Forget that the God of the Hebrews forbids human sacrifice of the form that Jesus asks you to embrace.  As far as they're concerned, you're just not getting it.  And they would condemn you to hell for it!

 

That's what's going on here.  You have an argument which I'm sure makes sense in your own mind, and thus to you we're all ignorant for not agreeing with you.  Not to indulge too much in the fallacy of guilt-by-association, but what you're employing here is Christian logic.  Please understand that just because we disagree with you doesn't mean that we are ignorant.  For that matter it doesn't even mean that our arguments have equal merit.  Our mathematical arguments are correct.  Yours are as wrong as the messiahship of Jesus.

 

Bhim,

 

You keep saying I am wrong and I keep proving that I am correct. You are clearly wrong in thinking that indeterminate form of 0/0 is not the same as infinity *0. I showed with two videos how the gentlemen easily convert one to the other within the context of limits, which I was also talking in that context. You said that the two indeterminate forms are not equal, and you are wrong, because they easily convert from one to the other as shown on the video.

 

The same way you are wrong on that account, you are wrong on the other accounts. I made my case. You disagree and think I am wrong. And I say that you are wrong. I have nothing against you. I would not say anything derogatory about you. You made arguments against me and say I am wrong. I have defended myself and say you are wrong. There is no point in me repeating all the proofs, because we will just go in circles. I suspect most people HERE will believe you over me, but that is irrelevant. We would need to take any one point at a time and present our arguments to a qualified unbiased person and get his or her opinion on who is correct.  Unfortunately, I doubt that will happen.

[ContraBardus]

 

You keep saying I am wrong and I keep proving that I am correct. You are clearly wrong in thinking that indeterminate form of 0/0 is not the same as infinity *0. I showed with two videos how the gentlemen easily convert one to the other within the context of limits, which I was also talking in that context. You said that the two indeterminate forms are not equal, and you are wrong, because they easily convert from one to the other as shown on the video.

 

The same way you are wrong on that account, you are wrong on the other accounts. I made my case. You disagree and think I am wrong. And I say that you are wrong. I have nothing against you. I would not say anything derogatory about you. You made arguments against me and say I am wrong. I have defended myself and say you are wrong. There is no point in me repeating all the proofs, because we will just go in circles. I suspect most people HERE will believe you over me, but that is irrelevant. We would need to take any one point at a time and present our arguments to a qualified unbiased person and get his or her opinion on who is correct.  Unfortunately, I doubt that will happen.

 

 

Not to be too much of a bother, but even if you are correct, and the indeterminate form of 0/0 is actually the same as infinity *0 you've still 'proven' nothing.

 

You're not correct BTW, both 0 and infinity are both abstract concepts, actually more philosophical in nature than mathematical. In math, 0 is just a place holder and exists merely to make it easier to tell the difference between numbers such as 11 and 1001 so that numbers such as 1001 aren't expressed as 1  1. Without zero, what's the difference between 1 and 10? That's the entire point of the existence of 0. Infinity just means 'endless' and that's not something that can be calculated and thus is entirely useless from a mathematical standpoint. It's just not a number or an acceptable variable. Pi is a much better expression of the concept of endlessness in math and far more useful than something as vaguely defined and philosophical as 'infinity'.

 

We can agree to disagree on that as a group if you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that you still don't have actual mathematical proof of the concept of God anyway. Even if we suspend what we know and assume 0/0 is the same as infinity *0, you've still got to accept assumed variables about what God is, how it's defined, and how it relates to a formula, which you've never actually provided. God must be assumed, and it's properties must be assumed, and even then you've got a weak argument about how it relates to math at all.

 

Put simply, you've got to assume far too much to claim 'mathematical proof' of anything with your argument, much less even the vaguest possible definition of a 'God'.

 

Even assuming you are right about zero and infinity, you've just got no grounding for your claims. It's just a philosophical assumption and has no basis in actual math. You've no more mathematically proven the existence of God than you have mathematically proven that there are no purple elephants on the surface of Pluto.

 

It's just Theological Philosophy pretending to be Science that you've provided us here. Nothing that comes anywhere near to 'proof' of anything.

 

You're just not providing a convincing or even compelling case of your assertions here. The problem is not a lack of understanding your argument or formula on our part. Your formula is bunk, and much more far fetched philosophy than math, plain and simple.

 

The fundamental issue here is that your argument is weak, and that's not a problem on our end.