Mathematical Proof Of God

[Guest nat]

 

 

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.

 

How many times do i have to say that i backed off time and again from my original loose use of the word proof. What I really meant was a correlation to the infinite source or God. The math is not bunk. Yes, 0 and infinity are much different than numbers, and in fact the infinite source (God) and nothingness are completely different from all other natural phenomena. The correlation is perfect. The same way infinity and 0 cannot be understood, so too, the infinite source and nothingness cannot be understood. The same way they are not numbers, so too, the infinite source (God) and nothingness are not natural phenomena. What can you not appreciate in this perfect correlation?

 

The other correlations are perfect too. Math in various contexts still does work with infinity and zero whether they are numbers or not. All numbers * 0= 0. And all numbers * infinity= infinity. Unlike the regular numbers, infinity and 0 affect everything equally. In the same way, all regular numbers/x->0 is infinity and all regular numbers/x-> infinity is 0. Here again all numbers are affected the same. And the very reason for this is because infinity and 0 transcend normal phenomena.

 

And what happens when you take the two extremes and multiply them together? You get the indeterminate form of infinity times 0, which can mathematically equal anything. 

 

All this was not meant as a proof of God, but it is a perfect correlation in every aspect. When the infinite source meets nothingness, all of creation is the result.

 

What is not perfect about this?

[Ravenstar]

It's nonsense

 

'infinite source'?  what infinite source? There's no supporting evidence that this is even a thing, or that the universe requires this thing. It MAY be an idea that has a certain probability, but it's not actually a reality as we know it. The universe seem fairly uniform.. in all directions, that which we can observe anyway. There is no 'center' either. BAA has some fascinating material on locality and observer and how this relates to this seeming uniformity.

 

'nothingness"? this is also an unsupported thing.. it's never been demonstrated. Even the emptiest 'space' still has virtual particles, quarks and other exotic forms of energy and matter in it.

 

'Transcendence'.. another unsupported concept. There is no evidence of the transcendent, and if it can't interact with our reality then it's pointless anyway and has no relevance.

 

"god"  what is a god?

 

None of the concepts you propose have any reality... and attaching silly and inaccurate philisophical mathematics to it is.. well... the whole thing is just... no.

[Guest nat]

It's nonsense

 

'infinite source'?  what infinite source? There's no supporting evidence that this is even a thing, or that the universe requires this thing. It MAY be an idea that has a certain probability, but it's not actually a reality as we know it. The universe seem fairly uniform.. in all directions, that which we can observe anyway. There is no 'center' either. BAA has some fascinating material on locality and observer and how this relates to this seeming uniformity.

 

'nothingness"? this is also an unsupported thing.. it's never been demonstrated. Even the emptiest 'space' still has virtual particles, quarks and other exotic forms of energy and matter in it.

 

'Transcendence'.. another unsupported concept. There is no evidence of the transcendent, and if it can't interact with our reality then it's pointless anyway and has no relevance.

 

"god"  what is a god?

 

None of the concepts you propose have any reality... and attaching silly and inaccurate philisophical mathematics to it is.. well... the whole thing is just... no.

Again, I wasn't coming to prove these things. I was saying that these things for those who accept them perfectly correlate with the way infinity and zero are and inter-react. And the correlations are such that they can lead one to believe that the infinite source/God exists. That is why i said in post #21 that the mathematical equations are something upon which it can be said that god exists. There is where I clearly indicated that I had used the word proof loosely

 

There is one thing that may approach provability, though. It does for me, but it obviously doesn't for you. I think you can prove an infinite source, because there is an infinite past before us. What that infinite source is, is debatable, but I think it is appropriate to say that it is provable. 

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

 

It's nonsense

 

'infinite source'?  what infinite source? There's no supporting evidence that this is even a thing, or that the universe requires this thing. It MAY be an idea that has a certain probability, but it's not actually a reality as we know it. The universe seem fairly uniform.. in all directions, that which we can observe anyway. There is no 'center' either. BAA has some fascinating material on locality and observer and how this relates to this seeming uniformity.

 

'nothingness"? this is also an unsupported thing.. it's never been demonstrated. Even the emptiest 'space' still has virtual particles, quarks and other exotic forms of energy and matter in it.

 

'Transcendence'.. another unsupported concept. There is no evidence of the transcendent, and if it can't interact with our reality then it's pointless anyway and has no relevance.

 

"god"  what is a god?

 

None of the concepts you propose have any reality... and attaching silly and inaccurate philisophical mathematics to it is.. well... the whole thing is just... no.

Again, I wasn't coming to prove these things. I was saying that these things for those who accept them perfectly correlate with the way infinity and zero are and inter-react. And the correlations are such that they can lead one to believe that the infinite source/God exists. That is why i said in post #21 that the mathematical equations are something upon which it can be said that god exists. There is where I clearly indicated that I had used the word proof loosely

 

There is one thing that may approach provability, though. It does for me, but it obviously doesn't for you. I think you can prove an infinite source, because there is an infinite past before us. What that infinite source is, is debatable, but I think it is appropriate to say that it is provable. 

 

Yet here you are again using terminology and immediately calling it god. At least when I see the term infinite source(god), it comes across that way. I apologize if you did come along later in posts and change your wording. I only read about 75% of it when I see a long string of posts in a row are just two people bickering over the format of a math problem and how it is being used appropriately or not.

[florduh]

This reminds me of the time end3 tried to prove the trinity with water, or some such shit.

 

Sorry, end - love ya!

[ContraBardus]

Yet here you are again using terminology and immediately calling it god. At least when I see the term infinite source(god), it comes across that way. I apologize if you did come along later in posts and change your wording. I only read about 75% of it when I see a long string of posts in a row are just two people bickering over the format of a math problem and how it is being used appropriately or not.

 

 

Agreed, there is no correlation between these abstract philosophical concepts you keep bringing up and any sort of 'God'.

 

You're just attaching buzzwords to numbers and claiming that irrelevant concepts have some sort of attachment to abstracts that aren't really numbers in some sort of formula.

 

It doesn't make sense. You seem to think that it does, but most of the terms you're trying to use to describe it have no real definition. God, Transcendence, infinite source, nothingness, and yes, even perfection are all abstract and too loosely defined to be of any use in any sort of equation. They might be of some use in a loose philosophical manner, but have no relevance in math or astrophysics, or any sort of scientific discipline. They're just buzzwords popularized by new age thinking that are being absorbed into Abrahamic religious ideas to make them sound more 'scientific'.

 

It is as Ravenstar says, and much like Camelot 'a silly place'.

 

What is perfection anyway? Certainly not the 'God of Abraham' who becomes angry when someone calls him a name and has creations on a speck of microdust in his vast universe that can hide from him by running into a cave. I would see a 'Perfect God' as a being who acts as a closed system. Something that would not require worship, attention, or even need to create a universe. A perfect being would be entirely self sufficient and not require anything from an outside source. In other words, a being who would not have needed to create me or my world to begin with, and who wouldn't care if I worshiped it, or even whether I acknowledged it's existence or not.

 

Most Theistic thinking is very arrogant in this regard, thinking individuals or even this entire world would be acknowledged by any being powerful enough to have created the universe. Much less having a 'personal relationship' with such a being. The God of the Bible/Torah is by far an imperfect being, more so than it's creations. It's temperamental, jealous, and petty. No such being would really require attention, approval, or worship of such petty things that it has created. The idea that it would waste the attention to judge such a tiny microbe's in it's vast universe[s?] existence and offer any sort of eternal punishment or reward is arrogant and very vain.

 

Even if there is such a thing as 'God' I'm not so foolish or arrogant as to believe that it cares about me, what I do, or that it might require any attention or adoration from me. I don't need such a being's approval to behave myself and not act a fool. Nor do I believe anyone else does. If you need the threat of Hell or the reward of Heaven to be a good person, you're a tool to begin with and don't deserve either. Yes I mean that even a person who behaves evilly for their entire existence on this planet does not deserve an -eternity- of suffering for it. It's a punishment that far outweighs the crime, and no being can claim to be just who would do such a thing, or merciful for that matter. Being Just and being Merciful are mutually exclusive anyway, you really can't honestly be both of those things.

 

I also don't believe 'eternal life' is a good thing. I don't want to live forever in anyone's presence. I only see that ending in insanity and suffering. The concept of 'Eternal Life' does not appeal to me.

 

Your logic isn't sound. Your math is questionable, and you're only digging the hole deeper. We aren't buying it because it's not making any sense, not because we don't understand what you're saying. We do, and there's simply no good reason to think that you are correct. Your calculations are in error.

 

I'm having trouble accepting your philosophical claims, much less your mathematical claims. Both seem to be mere assumptions on your part at best, and completely in error.

[boftx]

One more time, the math doesn't really matter.

 

Let's grant for the moment that nat's mathematical assertions are correct. Let's even grant that there is indeed a 1 to 1 mapping as he maintains in the behavior of infinity and 0, and "God" and nothingness.

 

It is still only an analogy. There is no co-dependence between the two sets of behaviors. To put it another way, one can say (loosely) that infinity and zero, as employed by nat, can be used to model the behavior of "God" and nothingness. But it would be absurd to say that because such a model exists that what is being modeled must also exist and is in fact the reason the model exists.

[Guest nat]

 

Yet here you are again using terminology and immediately calling it god. At least when I see the term infinite source(god), it comes across that way. I apologize if you did come along later in posts and change your wording. I only read about 75% of it when I see a long string of posts in a row are just two people bickering over the format of a math problem and how it is being used appropriately or not.

 

 

Agreed, there is no correlation between these abstract philosophical concepts you keep bringing up and any sort of 'God'.

 

You're just attaching buzzwords to numbers and claiming that irrelevant concepts have some sort of attachment to abstracts that aren't really numbers in some sort of formula.

 

It doesn't make sense. You seem to think that it does, but most of the terms you're trying to use to describe it have no real definition. God, Transcendence, infinite source, nothingness, and yes, even perfection are all abstract and too loosely defined to be of any use in any sort of equation. They might be of some use in a loose philosophical manner, but have no relevance in math or astrophysics, or any sort of scientific discipline. They're just buzzwords popularized by new age thinking that are being absorbed into Abrahamic religious ideas to make them sound more 'scientific'.

 

It is as Ravenstar says, and much like Camelot 'a silly place'.

 

What is perfection anyway? Certainly not the 'God of Abraham' who becomes angry when someone calls him a name and has creations on a speck of microdust in his vast universe that can hide from him by running into a cave. I would see a 'Perfect God' as a being who acts as a closed system. Something that would not require worship, attention, or even need to create a universe. A perfect being would be entirely self sufficient and not require anything from an outside source. In other words, a being who would not have needed to create me or my world to begin with, and who wouldn't care if I worshiped it, or even whether I acknowledged it's existence or not.

 

Most Theistic thinking is very arrogant in this regard, thinking individuals or even this entire world would be acknowledged by any being powerful enough to have created the universe. Much less having a 'personal relationship' with such a being. The God of the Bible/Torah is by far an imperfect being, more so than it's creations. It's temperamental, jealous, and petty. No such being would really require attention, approval, or worship of such petty things that it has created. The idea that it would waste the attention to judge such a tiny microbe's in it's vast universe[s?] existence and offer any sort of eternal punishment or reward is arrogant and very vain.

 

Even if there is such a thing as 'God' I'm not so foolish or arrogant as to believe that it cares about me, what I do, or that it might require any attention or adoration from me. I don't need such a being's approval to behave myself and not act a fool. Nor do I believe anyone else does. If you need the threat of Hell or the reward of Heaven to be a good person, you're a tool to begin with and don't deserve either. Yes I mean that even a person who behaves evilly for their entire existence on this planet does not deserve an -eternity- of suffering for it. It's a punishment that far outweighs the crime, and no being can claim to be just who would do such a thing, or merciful for that matter. Being Just and being Merciful are mutually exclusive anyway, you really can't honestly be both of those things.

 

I also don't believe 'eternal life' is a good thing. I don't want to live forever in anyone's presence. I only see that ending in insanity and suffering. The concept of 'Eternal Life' does not appeal to me.

 

Your logic isn't sound. Your math is questionable, and you're only digging the hole deeper. We aren't buying it because it's not making any sense, not because we don't understand what you're saying. We do, and there's simply no good reason to think that you are correct. Your calculations are in error.

 

I'm having trouble accepting your philosophical claims, much less your mathematical claims. Both seem to be mere assumptions on your part at best, and completely in error.

 

Here you go off into the God of the bible when every time i repeat and repeat myself, I make no mention of Him. That is what I say that people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. That is why so many people can't get off the fact that I was not attempting to bring absolute proof, just a correlation between the math concepts and the abstract philosophical ones. You also say my calculations are in error but you can't say one thing to show that. I have made various mathematical points, some of which are as simple as x*0=0. Is that calculation wrong also? I have defended all the calculations i made and I can yet still. Yes, the abstract nature of the material and correlations and the whole idea of infinite source and nothingness will go where many don't want to go. The logic is still sound and the correlation is perfect. Because infinity and zero are abstract and the infinite source and nothingness I correlate it to are also abstract. To me the symmetry is reason for me to believe. If you don't want to take that step, that is your choice. I am not pushing that step. I am just making the correlation between the two. I see very clearly that when God or God like things make people uncomfortable, they will knee jerk into trashing anything that seems to be going in that direction, even when it is not, but they are scared that it is headed there. Too bad. i have said over and over that this thread is not a way for me to head into the God of the bible. I have no interest in going there. I care not what anyone believes. But how many times has this fear become so clear that people say I said this or that about the God of the bible when i did not. What close mindedness! What irrational fear! 

 

I am not even pushing the whole God thing. Most often I say infinite source and I say that it is debatable what that is. Sometimes I say infinite source (God), because to me that is my understanding of the infinite source, but i am not pushing that. And I am not even mentioning the God of the bible. So why all the fear?

 

Too often, people are just saying the math is bad and the logic is bad, but without any proof or counter logic. Once in a while there will be counter arguments, but I can and will defend my claims and i challenge anyone to take any one point I made and defeat me in an argument, not about God of the bible, but about the points i am discussing here. Yes, many can and will make valid points, but various valid points are not mutually exclusive.

[Guest nat]

One more time, the math doesn't really matter.

 

Let's grant for the moment that nat's mathematical assertions are correct. Let's even grant that there is indeed a 1 to 1 mapping as he maintains in the behavior of infinity and 0, and "God" and nothingness.

 

It is still only an analogy. There is no co-dependence between the two sets of behaviors. To put it another way, one can say (loosely) that infinity and zero, as employed by nat, can be used to model the behavior of "God" and nothingness. But it would be absurd to say that because such a model exists that what is being modeled must also exist and is in fact the reason the model exists.

Boftx,

 

That is why I am saying over and over that I am not attempting to bring proof from one to the other but to show the correlation between the two. The correlation and the ideas are something that people can contemplate. Everyone will draw their own conclusions based on many factors. To those who believe, it may enhance their belief. To me, the symmetry is pleasing and it enhances my belief. To others this is not meaningful. To each his own. But I am saddened by the constant knee jerk reactions by those who see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear and have an irrational fear of hearing something that makes them uncomfortable.

[Guest nat]

Quote

Yet here you are again using terminology and immediately calling it god. At least when I see the term infinite source(god), it comes across that way. I apologize if you did come along later in posts and change your wording. I only read about 75% of it when I see a long string of posts in a row are just two people bickering over the format of a math problem and how it is being used appropriately or not.

End
 

Please look at my previous post (the one before last) where i explain what i mean by infinite source (God). In any case, I am just correlating the philosophical abstract concepts of infinite source and nothingness to the mathematical ways similar things like infinity and zero (which are also abstract) are used. Good listening is seeing what the other is saying, not defining it how you want to.

[ContraBardus]

Here you go off into the God of the bible when every time i repeat and repeat myself, I make no mention of Him. That is what I say that people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. That is why so many people can't get off the fact that I was not attempting to bring absolute proof, just a correlation between the math concepts and the abstract philosophical ones. You also say my calculations are in error but you can't say one thing to show that. I have made various mathematical points, some of which are as simple as x*0=0. Is that calculation wrong also? I have defended all the calculations i made and I can yet still. Yes, the abstract nature of the material and correlations and the whole idea of infinite source and nothingness will go where many don't want to go. The logic is still sound and the correlation is perfect. Because infinity and zero are abstract and the infinite source and nothingness I correlate it to are also abstract. To me the symmetry is reason for me to believe. If you don't want to take that step, that is your choice. I am not pushing that step. I am just making the correlation between the two. I see very clearly that when God or God like things make people uncomfortable, they will knee jerk into trashing anything that seems to be going in that direction, even when it is not, but they are scared that it is headed there. Too bad. i have said over and over that this thread is not a way for me to head into the God of the bible. I have no interest in going there. I care not what anyone believes. But how many times has this fear become so clear that people say I said this or that about the God of the bible when i did not. What close mindedness! What irrational fear! 

 

I am not even pushing the whole God thing. Most often I say infinite source and I say that it is debatable what that is. Sometimes I say infinite source (God), because to me that is my understanding of the infinite source, but i am not pushing that. Too often, people are just saying the math is bad and the logic is bad, but without any proof or counter logic. Once in a while there will be counter arguments, but I can and will defend my claims and i challenge anyone to take any one point I made and defeat me in an argument. Yes, many can and will make valid points, but various valid points are not mutually exclusive.

 

You obviously don't understand the concept of symmetry within mathematics then. What you're describing here is philosophical symmetry, and poorly defined philosophical symmetry at that. It's more in line with the new age concept of Zen than anything else. It doesn't even really fit in with the traditional Eastern concept of Zen really, much less Jewish theology. Seems kind of odd that you'd be making these arguments at all really. They're out of place coming from someone who claims to be of the Jewish faith. Not saying that you're not, just that it seems odd to me that you'd be making these sorts of arguments.

 

Pretty much what you're saying here is that you know you're wrong, and you don't want to admit it now that you've been shown definitively that you are wrong. You've completely backtracked from your original statements and are now saying that 'it isn't what I was saying' when there is a clear record that it -is- what you were saying in the pages preceding this one. Each of your arguments has been knocked down and you're now claiming that you were only making soft philosophical claims and hiding your error behind abstract concepts.

 

Again, -what infinite source-? What are you talking about? That's nothing but a new age buzzword. It has no meaning and you can wedge any idea into it with wishy washy philosophy.

 

 

 

Here you go off into the God of the bible when every time i repeat and repeat myself, I make no mention of Him

 

You have in previous posts at least alluded to the idea of Torah/Bible God, but backed off of that.

 

Also...

 

 

Agreed, there is no correlation between these abstract philosophical concepts you keep bringing up and any sort of 'God'.

 

You're just attaching buzzwords to numbers and claiming that irrelevant concepts have some sort of attachment to abstracts that aren't really numbers in some sort of formula.

 

It doesn't make sense. You seem to think that it does, but most of the terms you're trying to use to describe it have no real definition. God, Transcendence, infinite source, nothingness, and yes, even perfection are all abstract and too loosely defined to be of any use in any sort of equation. They might be of some use in a loose philosophical manner, but have no relevance in math or astrophysics, or any sort of scientific discipline. They're just buzzwords popularized by new age thinking that are being absorbed into Abrahamic religious ideas to make them sound more 'scientific'.

 

It is as Ravenstar says, and much like Camelot 'a silly place'.

 

None of that had anything to do with Bible/Torah God. I got more specific briefly after this, but then broadened again into the idea of 'Theistic theoretical God' which is much broader than Torah God in definition and still a soft abstract idea. You're essentially complaining that I'm not being vague enough to satisfy your suppositions, which is an odd criticism to be making. Especially in a debate involving math and the existence of an entity.

 

I would see a 'Perfect God' as a being who acts as a closed system. Something that would not require worship, attention, or even need to create a universe. A perfect being would be entirely self sufficient and not require anything from an outside source. In other words, a being who would not have needed to create me or my world to begin with, and who wouldn't care if I worshiped it, or even whether I acknowledged it's existence or not.

 

Most Theistic thinking is very arrogant in this regard, thinking individuals or even this entire world would be acknowledged by any being powerful enough to have created the universe. Much less having a 'personal relationship' with such a being...

 

Even if there is such a thing as 'God' I'm not so foolish or arrogant as to believe that it cares about me, what I do, or that it might require any attention or adoration from me. I don't need such a being's approval to behave myself and not act a fool. Nor do I believe anyone else does. If you need the threat of Hell or the reward of Heaven to be a good person, you're a tool to begin with and don't deserve either. Yes I mean that even a person who behaves evilly for their entire existence on this planet does not deserve an -eternity- of suffering for it. It's a punishment that far outweighs the crime, and no being can claim to be just who would do such a thing, or merciful for that matter. Being Just and being Merciful are mutually exclusive anyway, you really can't honestly be both of those things.

 

The vast majority of my post had little to nothing to do with any specific 'God', but rather common definitions of 'God'.

 

Besides, if 'God' exists in such a broad sense as you are now suggest, what difference does it make if we're Atheists, Christians, Hindi, or whatever, and what validation do you have for your Jewish beliefs? Such a God would be more like my description of a being so far above us as it doesn't matter if we believe in it, worship it, or care about it's existence. It would be so far above our existence that it would not care for us anymore than we care for a single harmless microbe floating around the air on a dust speck within our home. In such a case, the results of this debate would be irrelevant.

 

You're getting too vague to be making any sort of actual argument or point anymore. You've degraded from 'mathematical proof of God' to an argument on the level of 'What if invisible fairies use magic dust to make flowers bloom?'

 

You've gone from a strong assertion of what you suggested was indisputable fact to a vague 'what if' argument claiming that 'maybe possibly possibilities correlate to existence if you think about infinity and assume magic buzzwords are relevant.' In other words, wishful thinking as fact on the grounds that negatives can't be proven.

 

Maybe, possibly there is a Transcendent, Perfect, Infinite Source, God of fairy dust and magical sparkles, but it's not likely or relevant either way if there is.

 

You've failed to show correlation to anything in your arguments at all. Just a bunch of suppositions and wishes that you tried and failed to attach to a vague sort of almost but not really mathematical formula.

 

You might as well be trying to argue the existence of Never Never Land, it makes about as much sense as what you've put forth so far.

[Guest nat]

 

 

You obviously don't understand the concept of symmetry within mathematics then. What you're describing here is philosophical symmetry, and poorly defined philosophical symmetry at that. It's more in line with the new age concept of Zen than anything else. It doesn't even really fit in with the traditional Eastern concept of Zen really, much less Jewish theology. Seems kind of odd that you'd be making these arguments at all really. They're out of place coming from someone who claims to be of the Jewish faith. Not saying that you're not, just that it seems odd to me that you'd be making these sorts of arguments.

 

Pretty much what you're saying here is that you know you're wrong, and you don't want to admit it now that you've been shown definitively that you are wrong. You've completely backtracked from your original statements and are now saying that 'it isn't what I was saying' when there is a clear record that it -is- what you were saying in the pages preceding this one. Each of your arguments has been knocked down and you're now claiming that you were only making soft philosophical claims and hiding your error behind abstract concepts.

 

Again, -what infinite source-? What are you talking about? That's nothing but a new age buzzword. It has no meaning and you can wedge any idea into it with wishy washy philosophy.

 

 

 

Here you go off into the God of the bible when every time i repeat and repeat myself, I make no mention of Him

 

You have in previous posts at least alluded to the idea of Torah/Bible God, but backed off of that.

 

Also...

 

 

Agreed, there is no correlation between these abstract philosophical concepts you keep bringing up and any sort of 'God'.

 

You're just attaching buzzwords to numbers and claiming that irrelevant concepts have some sort of attachment to abstracts that aren't really numbers in some sort of formula.

 

It doesn't make sense. You seem to think that it does, but most of the terms you're trying to use to describe it have no real definition. God, Transcendence, infinite source, nothingness, and yes, even perfection are all abstract and too loosely defined to be of any use in any sort of equation. They might be of some use in a loose philosophical manner, but have no relevance in math or astrophysics, or any sort of scientific discipline. They're just buzzwords popularized by new age thinking that are being absorbed into Abrahamic religious ideas to make them sound more 'scientific'.

 

It is as Ravenstar says, and much like Camelot 'a silly place'.

 

None of that had anything to do with Bible/Torah God. I got more specific briefly, but then broadened again into the idea of 'Theistic theoretical God' which is much broader than Torah God in definition but still less vague than my initial description of theoretical and mostly undefined God quoted above.

 

I would see a 'Perfect God' as a being who acts as a closed system. Something that would not require worship, attention, or even need to create a universe. A perfect being would be entirely self sufficient and not require anything from an outside source. In other words, a being who would not have needed to create me or my world to begin with, and who wouldn't care if I worshiped it, or even whether I acknowledged it's existence or not.

 

Most Theistic thinking is very arrogant in this regard, thinking individuals or even this entire world would be acknowledged by any being powerful enough to have created the universe. Much less having a 'personal relationship' with such a being...

 

Even if there is such a thing as 'God' I'm not so foolish or arrogant as to believe that it cares about me, what I do, or that it might require any attention or adoration from me. I don't need such a being's approval to behave myself and not act a fool. Nor do I believe anyone else does. If you need the threat of Hell or the reward of Heaven to be a good person, you're a tool to begin with and don't deserve either. Yes I mean that even a person who behaves evilly for their entire existence on this planet does not deserve an -eternity- of suffering for it. It's a punishment that far outweighs the crime, and no being can claim to be just who would do such a thing, or merciful for that matter. Being Just and being Merciful are mutually exclusive anyway, you really can't honestly be both of those things.

 

The vast majority of my post had little to nothing to do with any specific 'God', but rather common definitions of 'God'.

 

Besides, if 'God' exists in such a broad sense as you are now suggest, what difference does it make if we're Atheists and what validation do you have for your Jewish beliefs? Such a God would be more like my description of a being so far above us as it doesn't matter if we believe in it, worship it, or care about it's existence. It would be so far above our existence that it would not care for us anymore than we care for a single harmless microbe floating around the air on a dust speck within our home. In such a case, the results of this debate would be irrelevant.

 

You're getting too vague to be making any sort of actual argument or point anymore. You've degraded from 'mathematical proof of God' to an argument on the level of 'What if invisible fairies use magic dust to make flowers bloom?'

 

You've gone from a strong assertion of what you suggested was indisputable fact to a vague 'what if' argument claiming that 'maybe possibly possibilities correlate to existence if you think about infinity and assume magic buzzwords are relevant.' In other words, wishful thinking as fact on the grounds that negatives can't be proven.

 

Maybe, possibly there is a Transcendent, Perfect, Infinite Source, God of fairy dust and magical sparkles, but it's not likely or relevant either way if there is.

 

You've failed to show correlation to anything in your arguments at all. Just a bunch of suppositions and wishes that you tried and failed to attach to a vague sort of almost but not really mathematical formula.

 

You might as well be trying to argue the existence of Never Never Land, it makes about as much sense as what you've put forth so far.

 

So much falsehood in your statements. You say my math and logic are wrong. Let me see you bring up any one particular point and show me how it is wrong. Don't just say so. Show it. Don't just make many various point some of which have merit and somehow think that shows i am wrong. Let me see you bring one mathematical point I said and prove it wrong.  You said i was shown definitively that i was wrong. let me see you show that. You can't. 

 

You also know nothing of authentic Jewish tradition and faith. Do you know kabalah? Kabalah discusses the infinite source. And yes, you might be gratified to hear that the infinite source has no direct relationship with us. It is beyond and unfathomable. 

 

You are lying. Any mention by me of God of the bible was either to say that i am not discussing that or to answer people who questioned me how I believe in God of the bible when it seemed to them (as to you) that my points indicate otherwise. So you can't hold the stick at both ends. Do i believe in God of the bible? Yes. But I am not discussing that here. Is there a connection between God of the Bible and the infinite source, My belief teaches yes, but this has nothing to do with this thread. 

 

It is you who can't admit when you are wrong. it is you who sees what you want to see. i challenge you to prove I am wrong.

 

What did I say mathematically?

 

X*0=0 x*infinity=infinity Is that wrong?

numbers/x->0 is infinity  numbers/x->infinity is zero  Is that wrong?

infinity *0 is an indefinite form that can equal anything. Is that wrong?

 

Big Shot, let's see you show one of the above wrong.

 

What did i say as an correlation to the above math?

 

That the infinite source and nothingness similarly transcend and are unfathomable. Is that correlation wrong?

 

That the byproduct of the infinite source and nothingness is everything in-between.Is this correlation wrong?

 

Either put up or shut up. Show any disproof to the math or the logic.

 

You ask me what is the infinite source. It is simply what existed in the infinite past that is beyond all logic and comprehention, which has nothing directly to do with us. But it is the source of everything. 

[ContraBardus]

So much falsehood in your statements. You say my math and logic are wrong. Let me see you bring up any one particular point and show me how it is wrong. Don't just say so. Show it. Don't just make many various point some of which have merit and somehow think that shows i am wrong. Let me see you bring one mathematical point I said and prove it wrong.  You said i was shown definitively that i was wrong. let me see you show that. You can't. 

 

You also know nothing of authentic Jewish tradition and faith. Do you know kabalah? Kabalah discusses the infinite source. And yes, you might be gratified to hear that the infinite source has no direct relationship with us. It is beyond and unfathomable. 

 

You are lying. Any mention by me of God of the bible was either to say that i am not discussing that or to answer people who questioned me how I believe in God of the bible when it seemed to them (as to you) that my points indicate otherwise. So you can't hold the stick at both ends. Do i believe in God of the bible? Yes. But I am not discussing that here. Is there a connection between God of the Bible and the infinite source, My belief teaches yes, but this has nothing to do with this thread. 

 

It is you who can't admit when you are wrong. it is you who sees what you want to see. i challenge you to prove I am wrong.

 

What did I say mathematically?

 

X*0=0 x*infinity=infinity Is that wrong?

numbers/x->0 is infinity  numbers/x->infinity is zero  Is that wrong?

infinity *0 is an indefinite form that can equal anything. Is that wrong?

 

Big Shot, let's see you show one of the above wrong.

 

What did i say as an correlation to the above math?

 

That the infinite source and nothingness similarly transcend and are unfathomable. Is that correlation wrong?

 

That the byproduct of the infinite source and nothingness is everything in-between.Is this correlation wrong?

 

Either put up or shut up. Show any disproof to the math or the logic.

 

You ask me what is the infinite source. It is simply what existed in the infinite past that is beyond all logic and comprehention, which has nothing directly to do with us. But it is the source of everything. 

 

 

Fine, I'm not a Jew. Just because the Kabbalah talks about some infinite source, doesn't mean that it makes any sense, or that it's got any sort of mathematical basis. I was referring to the parallel to the western understanding of the Eastern concept of balance in New Age faiths you were making in relation to how you used symmetry in that statement anyway, and made no reference to 'infinity' or this 'infinite source' you speak of in the statement you're trying to refute here. It was completely unrelated to what you're going on about above.

 

You're bringing numerology into this if you're bringing up the Kabbalah, and that's not math. If anything it's far closer to a mystical sort of cryptogram than anything mathematical in nature.

 

However, if you really want to get into this 'infinite source' of yours and bring the Kabbalah into it then we'll just have to acknowledge that Ein-sof is used as God's [sort of] name in the Kabbalah, and now you're claiming it as the basis for your argument when not two posts ago we had this from you:

 

Here you go off into the God of the bible when every time i repeat and repeat myself, I make no mention of Him

 

So, you were obviously lying when you said that. The [sort of] name of God in the Kabbalah Ein-sof is the same entity as the God of Abraham Yahweh. This is the 'infinite source' you speak of, and as such you are indeed referring to 'Bible/Torah God' in your arguments. Thanks for clearing that up. [bTW, I find it curious that you spelled Kabbalah wrong twice. I've never seen it spelled 'Kabala' anywhere before, especially not by anyone Jewish, and yes I've discussed it with those of the Jewish faith on several occasions.] You can go on about 'aspects' and 'entities' all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you are indeed referring to the Hebrew God when you speak of 'infinite source' despite your claims otherwise.

 

The problem here is that even if I did show you that you were wrong, you'd deny it. I know this because this has already been done by several others in this thread already.

 

Yes, your supposed correlations are baseless conjecture. It's been explained in detail several times by others why it's wrong and you've refused to accept it on the simple grounds that it's simply not what you believe. It's got nothing to do with any evidence that shows you are correct, or any formula that supports your ideas, or any logic beyond 'it's what I believe' and that's no reason for anyone to agree that it's fact. It's simply poor reasoning.

 

That the infinite source and nothingness similarly transcend and are unfathomable.

 

That the byproduct of the infinite source and nothingness is everything in-between.

 

Those two statements have no more meaning than the statement 'I want to dialogue with you about creating long term quality commitment towards our bottom line and move forward towards our creative quantitative structure.' They are simply strings of nonsensical buzzwords that mean absolutely nothing. In other words, useless religious buzzwords that are simply there to sound important and authoritative. Obviously, people on this site would not be impressed by that, or it wouldn't exist in the first place.

 

Also, -I don't need to prove you wrong-. That's an important idea that you should remember. I'll explain further, the burden of proof lies on you and always has been your responsibility. You are the one making claims and asserting that you're correct in the face of doubt [which I am providing]. I have not made any true assertions and have merely questioned the validity of your claims and stated that I see no reason that you are correct. I have said you are wrong, but the basis of that has already been explained in detail by others in this thread. Stating that -I- have to prove -you- wrong is an unreasonable request, and an unacceptable stance in this kind of argument. -You- have to prove that -you are right- and you have -repeatedly failed to do so-. It has been repeatedly explained to you how and why you are in error throughout the course of this thread, and repeating it again would likely do no good.

 

Why should I waste my time and effort when you've been shown that you're wrong several times through the course of this thread? All you've done is simply discounted your error and backed into the comfort of squishy weak philosophical arguments because they don't require any sort of commitment and are too abstract to be of any use.

 

So what if X*infinity is infinity? We'll say it's right, and so what? It's a completely useless formula, too vague and abstract to be of any value. Infinity is a simply worthless value and you're trying to make it far more important and relevant to this argument than it really is, which is to say not at all. As was stated earlier, it doesn't matter if the mathematical model is right or not. You're still just making assumptions and suppositions about the mathematical properties of magical forces. It doesn't show or even allude that such things actually exist no matter how correct the calculation is.

 

You assume 'infinite source' and 'nothingness' as proven and clearly defined concepts, and neither one is anything of the sort. You can't truly define either one, just like you can't truly define the concept of 'God'. What is it exactly? You can provide no actual explanation outside of nonsensical philosophical sounding drivel full of the sort of useless buzzwords I pointed out earlier in this post. I see no reason to believe there is such a thing as 'nothingness' or 'infinite source' and you've given no compelling reason to think otherwise, much less a clear definition of what either one is.

 

The problem here isn't that your math is bad so much as that what you're going on about isn't math at all. It's little more than new age psychobabble [or perhaps 'old age' would be more accurate] with numbers and infinity tossed in.

 

You're trying to claim numerology as math, and it's not, it's just magic with numbers and has no value or basis mathematically. Feel free to prove otherwise. I have no obligation to prove it's not true, you have to prove that it -is-. The Kabbalah is not a math book, it's a magic tome with a lot of numbers in it.

[boftx]

Whoa, folks! Everybody take a timeout for a few minutes. We have collectively been arguing this for over 15 pages now, and are doing little more than going around in circles.

nat, you started the topic and therefore got to set the title for it. I want to back up to your OP and see if we can establish some basics.

What, exactly was your purpose in choosing that title? And what was your goal in posting what you did? Also, please give us the definition of "God" that you are using, without the math.

There is no need to bring in the math from either side in answering those questions. But once all of us have a clear understanding of the purpose of the discussion then maybe, maybe, we can reach some form of understanding and find a direction for progress.
 

[ContraBardus]

Well, I'll check up on this thread tomorrow. The topic is interesting, but as of right now, I've become this:

 

[Guest nat]

 

So much falsehood in your statements. You say my math and logic are wrong. Let me see you bring up any one particular point and show me how it is wrong. Don't just say so. Show it. Don't just make many various point some of which have merit and somehow think that shows i am wrong. Let me see you bring one mathematical point I said and prove it wrong.  You said i was shown definitively that i was wrong. let me see you show that. You can't. 

 

You also know nothing of authentic Jewish tradition and faith. Do you know kabalah? Kabalah discusses the infinite source. And yes, you might be gratified to hear that the infinite source has no direct relationship with us. It is beyond and unfathomable. 

 

You are lying. Any mention by me of God of the bible was either to say that i am not discussing that or to answer people who questioned me how I believe in God of the bible when it seemed to them (as to you) that my points indicate otherwise. So you can't hold the stick at both ends. Do i believe in God of the bible? Yes. But I am not discussing that here. Is there a connection between God of the Bible and the infinite source, My belief teaches yes, but this has nothing to do with this thread. 

 

It is you who can't admit when you are wrong. it is you who sees what you want to see. i challenge you to prove I am wrong.

 

What did I say mathematically?

 

X*0=0 x*infinity=infinity Is that wrong?

numbers/x->0 is infinity  numbers/x->infinity is zero  Is that wrong?

infinity *0 is an indefinite form that can equal anything. Is that wrong?

 

Big Shot, let's see you show one of the above wrong.

 

What did i say as an correlation to the above math?

 

That the infinite source and nothingness similarly transcend and are unfathomable. Is that correlation wrong?

 

That the byproduct of the infinite source and nothingness is everything in-between.Is this correlation wrong?

 

Either put up or shut up. Show any disproof to the math or the logic.

 

You ask me what is the infinite source. It is simply what existed in the infinite past that is beyond all logic and comprehention, which has nothing directly to do with us. But it is the source of everything. 

 

 

Fine, I'm not a Jew. Just because the Kabbalah talks about some infinite source, doesn't mean that it makes any sense, or that it's got any sort of mathematical basis. I was referring to the parallel to the western understanding of the Eastern concept of balance in New Age faiths you were making in relation to how you used symmetry in that statement anyway, and made no reference to 'infinity' or this 'infinite source' you speak of in the statement you're trying to refute here. It was completely unrelated to what you're going on about above.

 

You're bringing numerology into this if you're bringing up the Kabbalah, and that's not math. If anything it's far closer to a mystical sort of cryptogram than anything mathematical in nature.

 

However, if you really want to get into this 'infinite source' of yours and bring the Kabbalah into it then we'll just have to acknowledge that Ein-sof is used as God's [sort of] name in the Kabbalah, and now you're claiming it as the basis for your argument when not two posts ago we had this from you:

 

Here you go off into the God of the bible when every time i repeat and repeat myself, I make no mention of Him

 

So, you were obviously lying when you said that. The [sort of] name of God in the Kabbalah Ein-sof is the same entity as the God of Abraham Yahweh. This is the 'infinite source' you speak of, and as such you are indeed referring to 'Bible/Torah God' in your arguments. Thanks for clearing that up. [bTW, I find it curious that you spelled Kabbalah wrong twice. I've never seen it spelled 'Kabala' anywhere before, especially not by anyone Jewish, and yes I've discussed it with those of the Jewish faith on several occasions.] You can go on about 'aspects' and 'entities' all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you are indeed referring to the Hebrew God when you speak of 'infinite source' despite your claims otherwise.

 

The problem here is that even if I did show you that you were wrong, you'd deny it. I know this because this has already been done by several others in this thread already.

 

Yes, your supposed correlations are baseless conjecture. It's been explained in detail several times by others why it's wrong and you've refused to accept it on the simple grounds that it's simply not what you believe. It's got nothing to do with any evidence that shows you are correct, or any formula that supports your ideas, or any logic beyond 'it's what I believe' and that's no reason for anyone to agree that it's fact. It's simply poor reasoning.

 

That the infinite source and nothingness similarly transcend and are unfathomable.

 

That the byproduct of the infinite source and nothingness is everything in-between.

 

Those two statements have no more meaning than the statement 'I want to dialogue with you about creating long term quality commitment towards our bottom line and move forward towards our creative quantitative structure.' They are simply strings of nonsensical buzzwords that mean absolutely nothing. In other words, useless religious buzzwords that are simply there to sound important and authoritative. Obviously, people on this site would not be impressed by that, or it wouldn't exist in the first place.

 

Also, -I don't need to prove you wrong-. That's an important idea that you should remember. I'll explain further, the burden of proof lies on you and always has been your responsibility. You are the one making claims and asserting that you're correct in the face of doubt [which I am providing]. I have not made any true assertions and have merely questioned the validity of your claims and stated that I see no reason that you are correct. I have said you are wrong, but the basis of that has already been explained in detail by others in this thread. Stating that -I- have to prove -you- wrong is an unreasonable request, and an unacceptable stance in this kind of argument. -You- have to prove that -you are right- and you have -repeatedly failed to do so-. It has been repeatedly explained to you how and why you are in error throughout the course of this thread, and repeating it again would likely do no good.

 

Why should I waste my time and effort when you've been shown that you're wrong several times through the course of this thread? All you've done is simply discounted your error and backed into the comfort of squishy weak philosophical arguments because they don't require any sort of commitment and are too abstract to be of any use.

 

So what if X*infinity is infinity? We'll say it's right, and so what? It's a completely useless formula, too vague and abstract to be of any value. Infinity is a simply worthless value and you're trying to make it far more important and relevant to this argument than it really is, which is to say not at all. As was stated earlier, it doesn't matter if the mathematical model is right or not. You're still just making assumptions and suppositions about the mathematical properties of magical forces. It doesn't show or even allude that such things actually exist no matter how correct the calculation is.

 

You assume 'infinite source' and 'nothingness' as proven and clearly defined concepts, and neither one is anything of the sort. You can't truly define either one, just like you can't truly define the concept of 'God'. What is it exactly? You can provide no actual explanation outside of nonsensical philosophical sounding drivel full of the sort of useless buzzwords I pointed out earlier in this post. I see no reason to believe there is such a thing as 'nothingness' or 'infinite source' and you've given no compelling reason to think otherwise, much less a clear definition of what either one is.

 

The problem here isn't that your math is bad so much as that what you're going on about isn't math at all. It's little more than new age psychobabble [or perhaps 'old age' would be more accurate] with numbers and infinity tossed in.

 

You're trying to claim numerology as math, and it's not, it's just magic with numbers and has no value or basis mathematically. Feel free to prove otherwise. I have no obligation to prove it's not true, you have to prove that it -is-. The Kabbalah is not a math book, it's a magic tome with a lot of numbers in it.

 

When you say I am definitively wrong on everything I said, math and logic, you should be able to back it up, not just rely on others. There was only one person who definitively tried to debate me on the math, and I proved him wrong with the two videos I posted. Don't rely on others. Let's see if you can back up your own words. But you can't.

You also can't defeat the logic just because you disagree with the subject matter or feel it is imaginary. I am making a correlation between things. You need to show that the correlations are wrong to debate the logic. Arguments about whether the subject matter is fantasy or not is not relevant to whether the correlations are logical. 

You don't know Kabbalah. Yet you say that what I am talking about are not Jewish concepts. So you are wrong. Ein Sof means without end, hence infinite. You think it is the same thing as God of the bible, but it is not. There is a relationship, but the two are not the same thing. If you knew Kabbalah, you would know that.

I have shown the time and again the reasoning behind my points. You just make various points that don't relate to my arguments and think that it shows something. But it does not. Again I challenge you to take any point I made and argue directly on it. Either show a math principle incorrect or show that the logic of the correlation is invalid. You can't do that. 

[Guest nat]

Whoa, folks! Everybody take a timeout for a few minutes. We have collectively been arguing this for over 15 pages now, and are doing little more than going around in circles.

 

nat, you started the topic and therefore got to set the title for it. I want to back up to your OP and see if we can establish some basics.

 

What, exactly was your purpose in choosing that title? And what was your goal in posting what you did? Also, please give us the definition of "God" that you are using, without the math.

 

There is no need to bring in the math from either side in answering those questions. But once all of us have a clear understanding of the purpose of the discussion then maybe, maybe, we can reach some form of understanding and find a direction for progress.

 

When i did the OP, I did it unassumingly. After people made valid points, I had to make slight adjustments to keep the thread relevant to this forum. I said proof of God loosely. I clarified that I could prove mathematical points which correlate to the infinite source (which to me is God) and nothingness and how they interact. On one mathematical equation, to get beyond some math limitations, I had to use a more complicated form to show the same point.

 

People see what they want to see and continue to ridicule or make invalid arguments even after the adjustments. I am the one who is honest. When I needed to adjust for this forum, I did. And for this forum, I tried very hard to keep the God related concepts as generic as possible.

 

But unfortunately, there is little chance here to get beyond the ridicule and fallacious arguments.  

[florduh]

 

 

But unfortunately, there is little chance here to get beyond the ridicule and fallacious arguments.  

 

 

 

 

You have failed, so you keep moving the goal post. First, it's a "Mathematical Proof of God," now you say it's not really a proof. You claim Judaism, and we all know what the Jewish god is, but you fudged that god into an amorphous, undefined concept hoping to make that fit.

 

The fallacious arguments you mentioned are your arguments, and you are correct that this thread is, after all this time, going nowhere. Let's wrap it up.

[stryper]

Nat, 

 

If you look at my only other post in thread, then you will see that I found in less then 2 minute google search a website that completely refutes your OP.  You have done nothing to show that you are re-evaluating your argument. 

It has simply devolved into a typical response of your just picking on me when your arguments are challenged on their own merits. 

 

I don't know what your original purpose was in coming here, but it seems it was the typical of all true believers regardless of religion.   Show the heathen they are wrong.

 

You have failed in that.  

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

 

Yet here you are again using terminology and immediately calling it god. At least when I see the term infinite source(god), it comes across that way. I apologize if you did come along later in posts and change your wording. I only read about 75% of it when I see a long string of posts in a row are just two people bickering over the format of a math problem and how it is being used appropriately or not.

 

 

Agreed, there is no correlation between these abstract philosophical concepts you keep bringing up and any sort of 'God'.

 

You're just attaching buzzwords to numbers and claiming that irrelevant concepts have some sort of attachment to abstracts that aren't really numbers in some sort of formula.

 

It doesn't make sense. You seem to think that it does, but most of the terms you're trying to use to describe it have no real definition. God, Transcendence, infinite source, nothingness, and yes, even perfection are all abstract and too loosely defined to be of any use in any sort of equation. They might be of some use in a loose philosophical manner, but have no relevance in math or astrophysics, or any sort of scientific discipline. They're just buzzwords popularized by new age thinking that are being absorbed into Abrahamic religious ideas to make them sound more 'scientific'.

 

It is as Ravenstar says, and much like Camelot 'a silly place'.

 

What is perfection anyway? Certainly not the 'God of Abraham' who becomes angry when someone calls him a name and has creations on a speck of microdust in his vast universe that can hide from him by running into a cave. I would see a 'Perfect God' as a being who acts as a closed system. Something that would not require worship, attention, or even need to create a universe. A perfect being would be entirely self sufficient and not require anything from an outside source. In other words, a being who would not have needed to create me or my world to begin with, and who wouldn't care if I worshiped it, or even whether I acknowledged it's existence or not.

 

Most Theistic thinking is very arrogant in this regard, thinking individuals or even this entire world would be acknowledged by any being powerful enough to have created the universe. Much less having a 'personal relationship' with such a being. The God of the Bible/Torah is by far an imperfect being, more so than it's creations. It's temperamental, jealous, and petty. No such being would really require attention, approval, or worship of such petty things that it has created. The idea that it would waste the attention to judge such a tiny microbe's in it's vast universe[s?] existence and offer any sort of eternal punishment or reward is arrogant and very vain.

 

Even if there is such a thing as 'God' I'm not so foolish or arrogant as to believe that it cares about me, what I do, or that it might require any attention or adoration from me. I don't need such a being's approval to behave myself and not act a fool. Nor do I believe anyone else does. If you need the threat of Hell or the reward of Heaven to be a good person, you're a tool to begin with and don't deserve either. Yes I mean that even a person who behaves evilly for their entire existence on this planet does not deserve an -eternity- of suffering for it. It's a punishment that far outweighs the crime, and no being can claim to be just who would do such a thing, or merciful for that matter. Being Just and being Merciful are mutually exclusive anyway, you really can't honestly be both of those things.

 

I also don't believe 'eternal life' is a good thing. I don't want to live forever in anyone's presence. I only see that ending in insanity and suffering. The concept of 'Eternal Life' does not appeal to me.

 

Your logic isn't sound. Your math is questionable, and you're only digging the hole deeper. We aren't buying it because it's not making any sense, not because we don't understand what you're saying. We do, and there's simply no good reason to think that you are correct. Your calculations are in error.

 

I'm having trouble accepting your philosophical claims, much less your mathematical claims. Both seem to be mere assumptions on your part at best, and completely in error.

 

You also must take in to account he isn't very specific as to what god it is.

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

 

 

Yet here you are again using terminology and immediately calling it god. At least when I see the term infinite source(god), it comes across that way. I apologize if you did come along later in posts and change your wording. I only read about 75% of it when I see a long string of posts in a row are just two people bickering over the format of a math problem and how it is being used appropriately or not.

 

 

Agreed, there is no correlation between these abstract philosophical concepts you keep bringing up and any sort of 'God'.

 

You're just attaching buzzwords to numbers and claiming that irrelevant concepts have some sort of attachment to abstracts that aren't really numbers in some sort of formula.

 

It doesn't make sense. You seem to think that it does, but most of the terms you're trying to use to describe it have no real definition. God, Transcendence, infinite source, nothingness, and yes, even perfection are all abstract and too loosely defined to be of any use in any sort of equation. They might be of some use in a loose philosophical manner, but have no relevance in math or astrophysics, or any sort of scientific discipline. They're just buzzwords popularized by new age thinking that are being absorbed into Abrahamic religious ideas to make them sound more 'scientific'.

 

It is as Ravenstar says, and much like Camelot 'a silly place'.

 

What is perfection anyway? Certainly not the 'God of Abraham' who becomes angry when someone calls him a name and has creations on a speck of microdust in his vast universe that can hide from him by running into a cave. I would see a 'Perfect God' as a being who acts as a closed system. Something that would not require worship, attention, or even need to create a universe. A perfect being would be entirely self sufficient and not require anything from an outside source. In other words, a being who would not have needed to create me or my world to begin with, and who wouldn't care if I worshiped it, or even whether I acknowledged it's existence or not.

 

Most Theistic thinking is very arrogant in this regard, thinking individuals or even this entire world would be acknowledged by any being powerful enough to have created the universe. Much less having a 'personal relationship' with such a being. The God of the Bible/Torah is by far an imperfect being, more so than it's creations. It's temperamental, jealous, and petty. No such being would really require attention, approval, or worship of such petty things that it has created. The idea that it would waste the attention to judge such a tiny microbe's in it's vast universe[s?] existence and offer any sort of eternal punishment or reward is arrogant and very vain.

 

Even if there is such a thing as 'God' I'm not so foolish or arrogant as to believe that it cares about me, what I do, or that it might require any attention or adoration from me. I don't need such a being's approval to behave myself and not act a fool. Nor do I believe anyone else does. If you need the threat of Hell or the reward of Heaven to be a good person, you're a tool to begin with and don't deserve either. Yes I mean that even a person who behaves evilly for their entire existence on this planet does not deserve an -eternity- of suffering for it. It's a punishment that far outweighs the crime, and no being can claim to be just who would do such a thing, or merciful for that matter. Being Just and being Merciful are mutually exclusive anyway, you really can't honestly be both of those things.

 

I also don't believe 'eternal life' is a good thing. I don't want to live forever in anyone's presence. I only see that ending in insanity and suffering. The concept of 'Eternal Life' does not appeal to me.

 

Your logic isn't sound. Your math is questionable, and you're only digging the hole deeper. We aren't buying it because it's not making any sense, not because we don't understand what you're saying. We do, and there's simply no good reason to think that you are correct. Your calculations are in error.

 

I'm having trouble accepting your philosophical claims, much less your mathematical claims. Both seem to be mere assumptions on your part at best, and completely in error.

 

Here you go off into the God of the bible when every time i repeat and repeat myself, I make no mention of Him. That is what I say that people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. That is why so many people can't get off the fact that I was not attempting to bring absolute proof, just a correlation between the math concepts and the abstract philosophical ones. You also say my calculations are in error but you can't say one thing to show that. I have made various mathematical points, some of which are as simple as x*0=0. Is that calculation wrong also? I have defended all the calculations i made and I can yet still. Yes, the abstract nature of the material and correlations and the whole idea of infinite source and nothingness will go where many don't want to go. The logic is still sound and the correlation is perfect. Because infinity and zero are abstract and the infinite source and nothingness I correlate it to are also abstract. To me the symmetry is reason for me to believe. If you don't want to take that step, that is your choice. I am not pushing that step. I am just making the correlation between the two. I see very clearly that when God or God like things make people uncomfortable, they will knee jerk into trashing anything that seems to be going in that direction, even when it is not, but they are scared that it is headed there. Too bad. i have said over and over that this thread is not a way for me to head into the God of the bible. I have no interest in going there. I care not what anyone believes. But how many times has this fear become so clear that people say I said this or that about the God of the bible when i did not. What close mindedness! What irrational fear! 

 

I am not even pushing the whole God thing. Most often I say infinite source and I say that it is debatable what that is. Sometimes I say infinite source (God), because to me that is my understanding of the infinite source, but i am not pushing that. And I am not even mentioning the God of the bible. So why all the fear?

 

Too often, people are just saying the math is bad and the logic is bad, but without any proof or counter logic. Once in a while there will be counter arguments, but I can and will defend my claims and i challenge anyone to take any one point I made and defeat me in an argument, not about God of the bible, but about the points i am discussing here. Yes, many can and will make valid points, but various valid points are not mutually exclusive.

 

You aren't even saying what type of deity you are referring to. It DOES matter.

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

 

Here you go off into the God of the bible when every time i repeat and repeat myself, I make no mention of Him. That is what I say that people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. That is why so many people can't get off the fact that I was not attempting to bring absolute proof, just a correlation between the math concepts and the abstract philosophical ones. You also say my calculations are in error but you can't say one thing to show that. I have made various mathematical points, some of which are as simple as x*0=0. Is that calculation wrong also? I have defended all the calculations i made and I can yet still. Yes, the abstract nature of the material and correlations and the whole idea of infinite source and nothingness will go where many don't want to go. The logic is still sound and the correlation is perfect. Because infinity and zero are abstract and the infinite source and nothingness I correlate it to are also abstract. To me the symmetry is reason for me to believe. If you don't want to take that step, that is your choice. I am not pushing that step. I am just making the correlation between the two. I see very clearly that when God or God like things make people uncomfortable, they will knee jerk into trashing anything that seems to be going in that direction, even when it is not, but they are scared that it is headed there. Too bad. i have said over and over that this thread is not a way for me to head into the God of the bible. I have no interest in going there. I care not what anyone believes. But how many times has this fear become so clear that people say I said this or that about the God of the bible when i did not. What close mindedness! What irrational fear! 

 

I am not even pushing the whole God thing. Most often I say infinite source and I say that it is debatable what that is. Sometimes I say infinite source (God), because to me that is my understanding of the infinite source, but i am not pushing that. Too often, people are just saying the math is bad and the logic is bad, but without any proof or counter logic. Once in a while there will be counter arguments, but I can and will defend my claims and i challenge anyone to take any one point I made and defeat me in an argument. Yes, many can and will make valid points, but various valid points are not mutually exclusive.

 

You obviously don't understand the concept of symmetry within mathematics then. What you're describing here is philosophical symmetry, and poorly defined philosophical symmetry at that. It's more in line with the new age concept of Zen than anything else. It doesn't even really fit in with the traditional Eastern concept of Zen really, much less Jewish theology. Seems kind of odd that you'd be making these arguments at all really. They're out of place coming from someone who claims to be of the Jewish faith. Not saying that you're not, just that it seems odd to me that you'd be making these sorts of arguments.

 

Pretty much what you're saying here is that you know you're wrong, and you don't want to admit it now that you've been shown definitively that you are wrong. You've completely backtracked from your original statements and are now saying that 'it isn't what I was saying' when there is a clear record that it -is- what you were saying in the pages preceding this one. Each of your arguments has been knocked down and you're now claiming that you were only making soft philosophical claims and hiding your error behind abstract concepts.

 

Again, -what infinite source-? What are you talking about? That's nothing but a new age buzzword. It has no meaning and you can wedge any idea into it with wishy washy philosophy.

 

 

 

Here you go off into the God of the bible when every time i repeat and repeat myself, I make no mention of Him

 

You have in previous posts at least alluded to the idea of Torah/Bible God, but backed off of that.

 

Also...

 

 

Agreed, there is no correlation between these abstract philosophical concepts you keep bringing up and any sort of 'God'.

 

You're just attaching buzzwords to numbers and claiming that irrelevant concepts have some sort of attachment to abstracts that aren't really numbers in some sort of formula.

 

It doesn't make sense. You seem to think that it does, but most of the terms you're trying to use to describe it have no real definition. God, Transcendence, infinite source, nothingness, and yes, even perfection are all abstract and too loosely defined to be of any use in any sort of equation. They might be of some use in a loose philosophical manner, but have no relevance in math or astrophysics, or any sort of scientific discipline. They're just buzzwords popularized by new age thinking that are being absorbed into Abrahamic religious ideas to make them sound more 'scientific'.

 

It is as Ravenstar says, and much like Camelot 'a silly place'.

 

None of that had anything to do with Bible/Torah God. I got more specific briefly after this, but then broadened again into the idea of 'Theistic theoretical God' which is much broader than Torah God in definition and still a soft abstract idea. You're essentially complaining that I'm not being vague enough to satisfy your suppositions, which is an odd criticism to be making. Especially in a debate involving math and the existence of an entity.

 

I would see a 'Perfect God' as a being who acts as a closed system. Something that would not require worship, attention, or even need to create a universe. A perfect being would be entirely self sufficient and not require anything from an outside source. In other words, a being who would not have needed to create me or my world to begin with, and who wouldn't care if I worshiped it, or even whether I acknowledged it's existence or not.

 

Most Theistic thinking is very arrogant in this regard, thinking individuals or even this entire world would be acknowledged by any being powerful enough to have created the universe. Much less having a 'personal relationship' with such a being...

 

Even if there is such a thing as 'God' I'm not so foolish or arrogant as to believe that it cares about me, what I do, or that it might require any attention or adoration from me. I don't need such a being's approval to behave myself and not act a fool. Nor do I believe anyone else does. If you need the threat of Hell or the reward of Heaven to be a good person, you're a tool to begin with and don't deserve either. Yes I mean that even a person who behaves evilly for their entire existence on this planet does not deserve an -eternity- of suffering for it. It's a punishment that far outweighs the crime, and no being can claim to be just who would do such a thing, or merciful for that matter. Being Just and being Merciful are mutually exclusive anyway, you really can't honestly be both of those things.

 

The vast majority of my post had little to nothing to do with any specific 'God', but rather common definitions of 'God'.

 

Besides, if 'God' exists in such a broad sense as you are now suggest, what difference does it make if we're Atheists, Christians, Hindi, or whatever, and what validation do you have for your Jewish beliefs? Such a God would be more like my description of a being so far above us as it doesn't matter if we believe in it, worship it, or care about it's existence. It would be so far above our existence that it would not care for us anymore than we care for a single harmless microbe floating around the air on a dust speck within our home. In such a case, the results of this debate would be irrelevant.

 

You're getting too vague to be making any sort of actual argument or point anymore. You've degraded from 'mathematical proof of God' to an argument on the level of 'What if invisible fairies use magic dust to make flowers bloom?'

 

You've gone from a strong assertion of what you suggested was indisputable fact to a vague 'what if' argument claiming that 'maybe possibly possibilities correlate to existence if you think about infinity and assume magic buzzwords are relevant.' In other words, wishful thinking as fact on the grounds that negatives can't be proven.

 

Maybe, possibly there is a Transcendent, Perfect, Infinite Source, God of fairy dust and magical sparkles, but it's not likely or relevant either way if there is.

 

You've failed to show correlation to anything in your arguments at all. Just a bunch of suppositions and wishes that you tried and failed to attach to a vague sort of almost but not really mathematical formula.

 

You might as well be trying to argue the existence of Never Never Land, it makes about as much sense as what you've put forth so far.

 

As I had said earlier, using mathematical concepts to semi show correllation with a deistic figure is vestigial at best.

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

Quote

Yet here you are again using terminology and immediately calling it god. At least when I see the term infinite source(god), it comes across that way. I apologize if you did come along later in posts and change your wording. I only read about 75% of it when I see a long string of posts in a row are just two people bickering over the format of a math problem and how it is being used appropriately or not.

End

 

Please look at my previous post (the one before last) where i explain what i mean by infinite source (God). In any case, I am just correlating the philosophical abstract concepts of infinite source and nothingness to the mathematical ways similar things like infinity and zero (which are also abstract) are used. Good listening is seeing what the other is saying, not defining it how you want to.

To your little slap at the end, I would also argue good discussion skills where you do not keep changing the meaning of the subject matter you are sharing would help one with listening skills understand what the hell you are even going on about.

[ContraBardus]

When i did the OP, I did it unassumingly. After people made valid points, I had to make slight adjustments to keep the thread relevant to this forum. I said proof of God loosely. I clarified that I could prove mathematical points which correlate to the infinite source (which to me is God) and nothingness and how they interact. On one mathematical equation, to get beyond some math limitations, I had to use a more complicated form to show the same point.

 

People see what they want to see and continue to ridicule or make invalid arguments even after the adjustments. I am the one who is honest. When I needed to adjust for this forum, I did. And for this forum, I tried very hard to keep the God related concepts as generic as possible.

 

But unfortunately, there is little chance here to get beyond the ridicule and fallacious arguments.  

 

 

If you actually read my posts, you'll see that aside from agreeing with the fact that you are in error, I've been focusing on the philosophical side of your argument. Yes, I do mention mathematics, and agreed that your formulas are bunk, but more because it's not actual mathematics you are using, it's numerology and vague philosophical drivel with numbers tossed in.

 

 It's difficult to prove that your math and calculations are wrong when you aren't actually using real math to begin with.

 

You failed to correlate. Others who are better than you at Math have already shown this, and 'this guy on youtube says it's wrong' is not a valid rebuttal and that video had little to no correlation to anything you were suggesting anyway. The only real similarity was that he used 'infinity' as a variable... in a Trig problem. It's not even close to the same sort of BS spiritual numbers formula that you're trying to push on us here. What he was doing only had a very vague similarity to what you're suggesting here and to say that the two ideas are even close to related is a huge stretch on your part.

 

Other people on this forum have shown this to be the case, and the only thing I've done from a mathematical standpoint is agree with what I see as their far superior assessment of your claims of 'mathematical formula' which I still say is simply thinly disguised Numerology, and not math at all. I agree with them about why you are wrong, and I've said nothing more than that. I've already stated that -it doesn't really matter if your math is correct or not- more than once. So repeatedly pushing me to 'show your equations wrong' is kind of pointless. What I've said is that I agree with the assessment of others that your math isn't very good, but that it doesn't matter anyway because even if it's correct it doesn't show what you claim it does. There is no real correlation aside from a forced wedging of irrelevant concepts into the [sort of] math you've provided thus far. That does not require that I show your calculations are incorrect to back it up because I am rebutting your spiritual claims and suggesting that they have nothing to do with math or real calculations to begin with.

 

At any rate, going on about how I didn't disprove your math to me is just cherry picking on your part. The vast majority of my posts have had little to nothing to do with math. Whining about how I didn't disprove your calculations is irrelevant. My stating that infinity and infinite source are two unrelated concepts is an argument against your philosophy, not your math. There's no reason to think the two have any real relation. Both refer to two completely different and only extremely vaguely related concepts of endlessness, one spiritual, the other not. They do not correlate as one has logical mathematical grounding [even if it is an abstract grounding], and the other is a spiritual/mystical idea that does not actually have any sort of evidence or probability to support it's existence. It's simply a claim and a poorly used variable.

 

If it is math, then why do scientist and mathematicians not accept this obvious and clear equation of proof you've provided? Why has it not been peer reviewed and accepted? This isn't the first time I've seen it, it's been around for quite a while. Yet, no one of credible scientific background with a relevant degree seems to accept it for some reason. Why is that? Normally I wouldn't use that type of argument, but you've opened the door to it by making appeals to authority yourself. [i.E. This Youtube video says I'm right!] If you're so right and it's so obvious, why hasn't -anyone- in the scientific community accepted it? This is not a new concept, there has been plenty of time for peer review and study. Why is it not a theory or even considered a possible hypothesis by the scientific community? It doesn't matter if I'm talking about 'Mathematical Proof of God' or equally undefined 'infinite source'. Either way, it's odd that there is no support for this 'formula' of yours in the scientific community if it's so sound considering it's been around so long.

 

Because it requires that you jump through hoops and presuppose the existence of 'infinite source' or 'God' to begin with. You're force wedging a mystical idea into a psuedo formula and claiming it as a scientific mathematical. I do not need to 'show your calculations are incorrect' because you're -not actually providing us with any sort of real mathematical formula or calculations-. It's just spirituality with numbers, numerology, and that has no mathematical or scientific basis. It's just a bald faced claim with no evidence to support it.

 

You claim to be making 'logical arguments' but your posts are full of logical fallacies.

 

I am just correlating the philosophical abstract concepts of infinite source and nothingness to the mathematical ways similar things like infinity and zero (which are also abstract) are used.

 

Why? There is no real correlation. That's kind of the point we've been making. This is just an irrelevant conclusion fallacy. Even if you are right about infinity, it doesn't mean that it has any correlation with any sort of infinite being. It doesn't make it any more likely that such a thing actually exists. You've done nothing to further the idea that there is any sort of correlation even on a theoretical philosophical level.

 

Also, you've repeatedly failed to address the fact that you've never defined what Transcendent, perfect, Infinite Source, God, nothingness, or any of your other spiritual buzzwords actually mean. It is important that these concepts are defined and explained to support the kind of argument you are trying to make. Without clear definitions of these concepts they cannot be used in any sort of valid argument or formula. They could mean anything and/or absolutely nothing. If they aren't defined, they are useless variables and tossing them about in your posts means nothing. It's a clear cut Presupposition Fallacy that fits the literal definition perfectly.

 

I've read the Kabbalah several times and I've discussed it with better Jews than you. I have a large collection of various religious tomes, collecting them is a hobby of mine. They didn't have the same 'understanding' of it you claim to have. I know Ein-sof means infinite/endless, that's obvious with how I used it in my post. Yaweh is an aspect of Ein-Sof, and they are the same thing in much the same way as Catholics believe that Jesus is both the Son of God and the same being as God at the same time. It's a similar concept to the 'holy trinity' and probably how that idea came into being in the first place. They are merely different names for the Hebrew God albeit different aspects of him and refer to the same being. Despite your claims otherwise, you are indeed referring to the Hebrew God in your posts with your reference to 'infinite source'. The idea is based on Abrahamic religion and that is exactly the type of God you're trying to support here despite your claims of broadening the definition of God. You bringing the Kabbalah into this at all directly contradicts your claim that you are not referring to such a god. Saying I don't 'know Kabbalah' has no real merit, and is just posturing anyway. It's simply you claiming yourself as an authority with no real grounds for it.

 

At any rate it's another fallacy to claim 'You're not Jewish and can't understand', clear cut 'No true Scotsman' Fallacy there.

 

I could go on pointing out examples of your various logical fallacies for quite a while, but I'd rather not spend the time I'd need to backtrack through the thread to do it. Suffice to say, these few examples I've provided are just the tip of the iceberg in regard to the huge number of Fallacies that have filled your posts up to this point.

 

Good listening is seeing what the other is saying, not defining it how you want to.

 

You should take a bit of your own advice.

[Voice]

I'm hoping no one read the last post I made back there on page 14, before I had a chance to take down some bullshit.

At this point you're on your own, nat, I've contributed everything I can for now.  

 

Having some experience manipulating divisions by zero, I will say I can appreciate your approach and why you're looking at it this way.  I recommend finding more than just this forum, more than just one discussion with one group of people if you intend to develop ideas like this further.