Mathematical Proof Of God

[Guest nat]

 

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. Your claim that 'You don't know Kabbalah' has no real merit and is just posturing. 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.

 

I see that your main point of argument is not the math. Good for you. But then you go on and on how no one accepts the math. That is complete hogwash. Yes, I did somewhat adjust my words from the original post. That is honesty on my part. No, I did not write it perfectly the first time off. I had to slightly adjust it to make it relevant for this forum. Go kill me for that. 

 

The math I presented is accepted by mathematicians.

x*0=0   X*infinity=infinity is accepted by math

x/x->0 is infinity   x/x->infinity is 0 is accepted by  math. 

infinity *0 is an indefinite form that can equal anything is accepted by math.

 

You are wrong on the math. 

 

Concerning the correlations, we probably have a different understand of what a correlation is.

I am stating simple logic that infinity and zero and the infinite source and nothingness have parallel principles. It makes no difference if you think one is a fairy tale. I am saying the the concepts if they exist are similar to the math. And they are. They are different than the other things in this realm. They are unknowable. These correlations are straight logic. Again, I am not trying to prove one from the other. I am just saying the the concepts have similar properties. You may think one is fake or meaningless, but this has nothing to do with the correlation assuming it exists.

 

You are wrong on Kabbalah. The God of the bible is the 10 sefirot. There is an argument about ein sof. Some felt that it is one of the ten. It is more accepted that it is not even one of them.Either way, the ein sof is not the same thing as the manifestation of the ein sof. The manifestation of the ein sof is the God of the bible. It is a manifestation of the ein sof and not ein sof itself. Yes, the two are very closely related, but I was discussing the ein sof and not its manifestation.

[Guest nat]

 

 

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.

 

You are a blood hound. You look for blood. No matter what I do or say you will look for something to find fault. Let's see you make one legitimate argument, instead of looking for blood.

[Guest nat]

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.  

I only saw that you posted some clip of monty python. It seems to be only about spam. It was not a serious post. So I have no clue what you are talking about.

[florduh]

You are a blood hound. You look for blood. No matter what I do or say you will look for something to find fault. Let's see you make one legitimate argument, instead of looking for blood.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

You are a blood hound. You look for blood. No matter what I do or say you will look for something to find fault. Let's see you make one legitimate argument, instead of looking for blood.

 

So you take issue with my observations?

[Guest nat]

You are a blood hound. You look for blood. No matter what I do or say you will look for something to find fault. Let's see you make one legitimate argument, instead of looking for blood.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

You are a blood hound. You look for blood. No matter what I do or say you will look for something to find fault. Let's see you make one legitimate argument, instead of looking for blood.

 

So you take issue with my observations?

You have an agenda. When someone has an agenda, nothing you do will help. If I am honest and readjust my words for this forum, I am moving the goal post. If I don't admit you will say that I can't admit to anything. You say, now I say something else, when I have made the adjustments very early on. And you still look for fault. You have an agenda. You look for blood. Don't make observations. Let's see you make a valid argument.

[ContraBardus]

You Are Wrong Because:  
For your convenience, I have placed an (x) beside the brain malfunction(s) that most closely resemble(s) the one(s) you recently made on the topic of (Mathematical Proof of God):
   

 

  1. AMAZINGLY BAD ANALOGY
Example: You can train a dog to fetch a stick. Therefore, you can train a potato to dance.

x 2. FAULTY CAUSE AND EFFECT
Example: On the basis of my observations, wearing huge pants makes you fat.

x 3. I AM THE WORLD
Example: I don’t listen to country music. Therefore, country music is not popular.

  4. IGNORING EVERYTHING SCIENCE KNOWS ABOUT THE BRAIN
Example: People choose to be obese/gay/alcoholic because they prefer the lifestyle.

x 5. THE FEW ARE THE SAME AS THE WHOLE
Example: Some Elbonians are animal rights activists. Some Elbonians wear fur coats. Therefore, Elbonians are hypocrites.

x 6. GENERALIZING FROM SELF
Example: I’m a liar. Therefore, I don’t believe what you’re saying.

x 7. ARGUMENT BY BIZARRE DEFINITION
Example: He’s not a criminal. He just does things that are against the law.

x 8. TOTAL LOGICAL DISCONNECT
Example: I enjoy pasta because my house is made of bricks.

x 9. JUDGING THINGS WITHOUT COMPARISON TO ALTERNATIVES
Example: I don’t invest in U.S. Treasury bills. There’s too much risk.

  10. ANYTHING YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND IS EASY TO DO
ExampIe: If you have the right tools, how hard could it be to generate nuclear fission at home?

  11. IGNORANCE OF STATISTICS
Example: I’m putting ALL of my money on the lottery this week because the jackpot is so big.

  12. IGNORING THE DOWNSIDE RISK
Example: I know that bungee jumping could kill me, but it’s three seconds of great fun!

  13. SUBSTITUTING FAMOUS QUOTES FOR COMMON SENSE
Example: Remember, “All things come to those who wait.” So don’t bother looking for a lob.

x 14. IRRELEVANT COMPARISONS
Example: A hundred dollars is a good price for a toaster, compared to buying a Ferrari.

x 15. CIRCULAR REASONING
Example: I’m correct because I’m smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I’m correct.

x 16. INCOMPLETENESS AS PROOF OF DEFECT
Example: Your theory of gravity doesn’t address the question of why there are no unicorns, so it must be wrong.

x 17. IGNORING THE ADVICE OF EXPERTS WITHOUT A GOOD REASON
Example: Sure, the experts think you shouldn’t ride a bicycle into the eye of a hurricane, but I have my own theory.

  18. FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF KNOWN IDIOTS
Example: Uncle Billy says pork makes you smarter. That’s good enough for me!

x 19. REACHING BIZARRE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION
Example: The car won’t start. I’m certain the spark plugs have been stolen by rogue clowns.

x 20. FAULTY PATTERN RECOGNITION
Example: His last six wives were murdered mysteriously. I hope to be wife number seven.

  21. FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE WHAT’S IMPORTANT
Example: My house is on fire! Quick, call the post office and tell them to hold my mail!

  22. UNCLEAR ON THE CONCEPT OF SUNK COSTS
Example: We’ve spent millions developing a water-powered pogo stick. We can’t stop investing now or it will all be wasted.

  23. OVERAPPLICATION OF OCCAM’S RAZOR (WHICH SAYS THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION IS USUALLY RIGHT)
Example: The simplest explanation for the moon landings is that they were hoaxes.

x 24. IGNORING ALL ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE
Example: I always get hives immediately after eating strawberries. But without a scientifically controlled experiment, it’s not reliable data. So I continue to eat strawberries every day, since I can’t tell if they cause hives.

x 25. INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME THINGS HAVE MULTIPLE CAUSES
Example: The Beatles were popular for one reason only: They were good singers.

x 26. JUDGING THE WHOLE BY ONE OF ITS CHARACTERISTICS
Example: The sun causes sunburns. Therefore, the planet would be better off without the sun.

x 27. BLINDING FLASHES OF THE OBVIOUS
Example: If everyone had more money, we could eliminate poverty.

x 28. BLAMING THE TOOL
Example: I bought an encyclopedia but I’m still stupid. This encyclopedia must be defective.

x 29. HALLUCINATIONS OF REALITY
Example: I got my facts from a talking tree.

x 30. TAKING THINGS TO THEIR ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION
ExampIe: If you let your barber cut your hair, the next thing you know he’ll be lopping off your limbs!

x 31. FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND WHY RULES DON’T HAVE EXCEPTIONS
Example: It should be legal to shoplift, as long as you don’t take enough to hurt the company’s earnings.

x 32. PROOF BY LACK OF EVIDENCE
Example: I’ve never seen you drunk, so you must be one of those Amish people.

 

I think that about covers it.

[Guest nat]

You Are Wrong Because:  

For your convenience, I have placed an (x) beside the brain malfunction(s) that most closely resemble(s) the one(s) you recently made on the topic of (Mathematical Proof of God):

   

 

  1. AMAZINGLY BAD ANALOGY

Example: You can train a dog to fetch a stick. Therefore, you can train a potato to dance.

x 2. FAULTY CAUSE AND EFFECT

Example: On the basis of my observations, wearing huge pants makes you fat.

x 3. I AM THE WORLD

Example: I don’t listen to country music. Therefore, country music is not popular.

  4. IGNORING EVERYTHING SCIENCE KNOWS ABOUT THE BRAIN

Example: People choose to be obese/gay/alcoholic because they prefer the lifestyle.

x 5. THE FEW ARE THE SAME AS THE WHOLE

Example: Some Elbonians are animal rights activists. Some Elbonians wear fur coats. Therefore, Elbonians are hypocrites.

x 6. GENERALIZING FROM SELF

Example: I’m a liar. Therefore, I don’t believe what you’re saying.

x 7. ARGUMENT BY BIZARRE DEFINITION

Example: He’s not a criminal. He just does things that are against the law.

x 8. TOTAL LOGICAL DISCONNECT

Example: I enjoy pasta because my house is made of bricks.

x 9. JUDGING THINGS WITHOUT COMPARISON TO ALTERNATIVES

Example: I don’t invest in U.S. Treasury bills. There’s too much risk.

  10. ANYTHING YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND IS EASY TO DO

ExampIe: If you have the right tools, how hard could it be to generate nuclear fission at home?

  11. IGNORANCE OF STATISTICS

Example: I’m putting ALL of my money on the lottery this week because the jackpot is so big.

  12. IGNORING THE DOWNSIDE RISK

Example: I know that bungee jumping could kill me, but it’s three seconds of great fun!

  13. SUBSTITUTING FAMOUS QUOTES FOR COMMON SENSE

Example: Remember, “All things come to those who wait.” So don’t bother looking for a lob.

x 14. IRRELEVANT COMPARISONS

Example: A hundred dollars is a good price for a toaster, compared to buying a Ferrari.

x 15. CIRCULAR REASONING

Example: I’m correct because I’m smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I’m correct.

x 16. INCOMPLETENESS AS PROOF OF DEFECT

Example: Your theory of gravity doesn’t address the question of why there are no unicorns, so it must be wrong.

x 17. IGNORING THE ADVICE OF EXPERTS WITHOUT A GOOD REASON

Example: Sure, the experts think you shouldn’t ride a bicycle into the eye of a hurricane, but I have my own theory.

  18. FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF KNOWN IDIOTS

Example: Uncle Billy says pork makes you smarter. That’s good enough for me!

x 19. REACHING BIZARRE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION

Example: The car won’t start. I’m certain the spark plugs have been stolen by rogue clowns.

x 20. FAULTY PATTERN RECOGNITION

Example: His last six wives were murdered mysteriously. I hope to be wife number seven.

  21. FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE WHAT’S IMPORTANT

Example: My house is on fire! Quick, call the post office and tell them to hold my mail!

  22. UNCLEAR ON THE CONCEPT OF SUNK COSTS

Example: We’ve spent millions developing a water-powered pogo stick. We can’t stop investing now or it will all be wasted.

  23. OVERAPPLICATION OF OCCAM’S RAZOR (WHICH SAYS THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION IS USUALLY RIGHT)

Example: The simplest explanation for the moon landings is that they were hoaxes.

x 24. IGNORING ALL ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE

Example: I always get hives immediately after eating strawberries. But without a scientifically controlled experiment, it’s not reliable data. So I continue to eat strawberries every day, since I can’t tell if they cause hives.

x 25. INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME THINGS HAVE MULTIPLE CAUSES

Example: The Beatles were popular for one reason only: They were good singers.

x 26. JUDGING THE WHOLE BY ONE OF ITS CHARACTERISTICS

Example: The sun causes sunburns. Therefore, the planet would be better off without the sun.

x 27. BLINDING FLASHES OF THE OBVIOUS

Example: If everyone had more money, we could eliminate poverty.

x 28. BLAMING THE TOOL

Example: I bought an encyclopedia but I’m still stupid. This encyclopedia must be defective.

x 29. HALLUCINATIONS OF REALITY

Example: I got my facts from a talking tree.

x 30. TAKING THINGS TO THEIR ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION

ExampIe: If you let your barber cut your hair, the next thing you know he’ll be lopping off your limbs!

x 31. FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND WHY RULES DON’T HAVE EXCEPTIONS

Example: It should be legal to shoplift, as long as you don’t take enough to hurt the company’s earnings.

x 32. PROOF BY LACK OF EVIDENCE

Example: I’ve never seen you drunk, so you must be one of those Amish people.

 

I think that about covers it.

All that can apply to you as well. Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

[Guest nat]

From Wikipedia on Ein Sof.

 

Any name of God which is found in the Bible can not be applied to the Deity prior to His self-manifestation in the Creation, because the letters of those names were produced only after the emanation. . . . Moreover, a name implies a limitation in its bearer; and this is impossible in connection with the 'Ein Sof.'

 

So I ask, who was right and who was wrong about this specific point?

 

Who can't admit when they are wrong?

 

Yet, the nuts will go on and on how what I say has no connection to Judaism or say that I am discussing God of the bible.

 

Yeah right. Come on. Admit already.

[Ouroboros]

The math I presented is accepted by mathematicians.

x*0=0   X*infinity=infinity is accepted by math

x/x->0 is infinity   x/x->infinity is 0 is accepted by  math. 

infinity *0 is an indefinite form that can equal anything is accepted by math.

*sigh* Please don't. It's just ugly math you did there.  Please take a class in calc before you claim what is "accepted by math."

For instance "x/x->0 is infinity" is a nonsense statement.

[ContraBardus]

All that can apply to you as well. Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

 

 

Seriously? Your response to that is 'I know you are but what am I?'

 

I admit that was a joke at your expense, but it's actually a pretty good comprehensive list of logical fallacies, if a bit simplified, and you've committed each and every one I checked off multiple times over the course of this thread. Your arguments are weak, and the validity of what little math there was is irrelevant. You're not making a convincing argument, nor have you provided any evidence to support your claims. Whether I'm guilty of these fallacies or not is irrelevant, because even if I am, everyone else who posted in this thread was not. You've not yet made a valid argument, it's been pointed out to you several times by multiple posters. You're not making the sense you seem to think you are.

 

Regardless of whether I'm guilty of the same, my criticisms above are valid. At the very least, the vast majority of the posts in this thread by others were logically sound and had valid criticisms of your claims and assertions.

 

So yeah, maybe I am guilty of these things, but you can't legitimately claim that of everyone else who has posted in this thread. Despite that it doesn't 'prove' anything as a majority does not necessarily mean correctness, it's still a good rule of thumb to assume that the problem is probably on your end when everyone else in the room says you're wrong, especially when there is a general agreement about how and why you are wrong. The vast majority of the time they are right and you are not.

 

You do not appear to even be considering the possibility that you are incorrect, and are merely changing the details of your argument to keep from admitting that you are wrong. I see no reason to consider any of your arguments or criticisms valid at this point.

[boftx]

nat, one question.

 

Can Ein Sof be considered to have some form of self-awareness? Or is Ein Sof strictly a "principle" (for lack of a better word)?

[Guest nat]

nat, one question.

 

Can Ein Sof be considered to have some form of self-awareness? Or is Ein Sof strictly a "principle" (for lack of a better word)?

It is hard to say anything about ein sof because it is said about it that we cannot understand it at all. I believe there is self awareness because self awareness stemmed from it, but its nature of self awareness or anything else about it is speculation.

[Guest nat]

 

All that can apply to you as well. Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

 

 

Seriously? Your response to that is 'I know you are but what am I?'

 

I admit that was a joke at your expense, but it's actually a pretty good comprehensive list of logical fallacies, if a bit simplified, and you've committed each and every one I checked off multiple times over the course of this thread. Your arguments are weak, and the validity of what little math there was is irrelevant. You're not making a convincing argument, nor have you provided any evidence to support your claims. Whether I'm guilty of these fallacies or not is irrelevant, because even if I am, everyone else who posted in this thread was not. You've not yet made a valid argument, it's been pointed out to you several times by multiple posters. You're not making the sense you seem to think you are.

 

Regardless of whether I'm guilty of the same, my criticisms above are valid. At the very least, the vast majority of the posts in this thread by others were logically sound and had valid criticisms of your claims and assertions.

 

So yeah, maybe I am guilty of these things, but you can't legitimately claim that of everyone else who has posted in this thread. Despite that it doesn't 'prove' anything as a majority does not necessarily mean correctness, it's still a good rule of thumb to assume that the problem is probably on your end when everyone else in the room says you're wrong, especially when there is a general agreement about how and why you are wrong. The vast majority of the time they are right and you are not.

 

You do not appear to even be considering the possibility that you are incorrect, and are merely changing the details of your argument to keep from admitting that you are wrong. I see no reason to consider any of your arguments or criticisms valid at this point.

 

So you can't admit you were wrong on what you said about Kabbalah.

[Guest nat]

 

The math I presented is accepted by mathematicians.

x*0=0   X*infinity=infinity is accepted by math

x/x->0 is infinity   x/x->infinity is 0 is accepted by  math. 

infinity *0 is an indefinite form that can equal anything is accepted by math.

*sigh* Please don't. It's just ugly math you did there.  Please take a class in calc before you claim what is "accepted by math."

For instance "x/x->0 is infinity" is a nonsense statement.

 

You say it is nonsense, but you don't say why.

 

What I said is that any number divided by another number as that number approaches zero, the answer is infinity. Go back and look at the 2 videos I posted and you will see this clearly. 

[boftx]

Why don't you all agree to disagree on the math question and focus on the more interesting topic of ein sof? I'm not going to say it is actually the case, but it seems to resemble something a deist would find appealing, and certainly seems more reasonable than "God" of the NT.

 

On a side-note, I have to point out that nat does have some latitude in how to define his concept of "God" of the OT in comparison to the restrictions a Christian has. (But there does seem to be a bit of goal-post moving while getting to this point.)

[Guest nat]

 

The math I presented is accepted by mathematicians.

x*0=0   X*infinity=infinity is accepted by math

x/x->0 is infinity   x/x->infinity is 0 is accepted by  math. 

infinity *0 is an indefinite form that can equal anything is accepted by math.

*sigh* Please don't. It's just ugly math you did there.  Please take a class in calc before you claim what is "accepted by math."

For instance "x/x->0 is infinity" is a nonsense statement.

 

Watch this video again. You will see how 1/x as x approaches 0 from the positive side is positive infinity. So you are wrong.

 

[Ouroboros]

 

 

The math I presented is accepted by mathematicians.

x*0=0   X*infinity=infinity is accepted by math

x/x->0 is infinity   x/x->infinity is 0 is accepted by  math. 

infinity *0 is an indefinite form that can equal anything is accepted by math.

*sigh* Please don't. It's just ugly math you did there.  Please take a class in calc before you claim what is "accepted by math."

For instance "x/x->0 is infinity" is a nonsense statement.

 

You say it is nonsense, but you don't say why.

 

What I said is that any number divided by another number as that number approaches zero, the answer is infinity. Go back and look at the 2 videos I posted and you will see this clearly. 

 

x/x->0 is not a mathematical expression. If you don't know why that statement you made is wrong, then I again recommend you take a calculus class. It's like blatant grammatical errors in English reveals that the person might not know English grammar that well.

 

If x/x->0 was a valid statement, then we can simplify it as 1->0, which means that 1 is going towards 0 (zero). And then you said that this "is infinity", which is the same as "=infinity."

 

In other words, what your statement is saying is this:

 

While 1 goes to 0 (zero) it equals infinity. It's nonsensical.

 

Perhaps what you meant to say is: "lim(c/x) when x->0 = inf." THAT would make sense. If you know why, then you wouldn't have to ask. Btw, that statement is one of the first and fundamental equalities you have to learn in pre-calc, so if you know it...

[Ouroboros]

 

 

The math I presented is accepted by mathematicians.

x*0=0   X*infinity=infinity is accepted by math

x/x->0 is infinity   x/x->infinity is 0 is accepted by  math. 

infinity *0 is an indefinite form that can equal anything is accepted by math.

*sigh* Please don't. It's just ugly math you did there.  Please take a class in calc before you claim what is "accepted by math."

For instance "x/x->0 is infinity" is a nonsense statement.

 

Watch this video again. You will see how 1/x as x approaches 0 from the positive side is positive infinity. So you are wrong.

 

 

Dude. lim(1/x) is not the same as "x/x->0". If you don't know why it's different, then you need to pick up a book.

 

lim of ln(x)/x is not the same as"x/x->0" either!!!

 

lim of blahblah/blubhub is not the same as "x/x".

 

Read the first word... "LIM" which stands for "LIMIT". And also, "LN(X)" instead of "X" or "1" (ONE) instead of "X".

 

Again, for the algebraically challenged: X/X reads "Ex over ex". While "LN(X)/X" reads "El-en ex over ex". And "LIM" reads "limit of". Basic stuff really.

 

So, NO. I'm actually right. "X/X->0" is nonsensical. "lim(ln(x)/x) when x->0" is however NOT. The lim-ln is an actual correctly stated mathematical statement.

 

[Ouroboros]

Why don't you all agree to disagree on the math question and focus on the more interesting topic of ein sof? 

Sure.

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

The math I presented is accepted by mathematicians.

x*0=0   X*infinity=infinity is accepted by math

x/x->0 is infinity   x/x->infinity is 0 is accepted by  math. 

infinity *0 is an indefinite form that can equal anything is accepted by math.

*sigh* Please don't. It's just ugly math you did there.  Please take a class in calc before you claim what is "accepted by math."

For instance "x/x->0 is infinity" is a nonsense statement.

 

Watch this video again. You will see how 1/x as x approaches 0 from the positive side is positive infinity. So you are wrong.

 

 

Dude. lim(1/x) is not the same as "x/x->0". If you don't know why it's different, then you need to pick up a book.

 

lim of ln(x)/x is not the same as"x/x->0" either!!!

 

lim of blahblah/blubhub is not the same as "x/x".

 

Read the first word... "LIM" which stands for "LIMIT". And also, "LN(X)" instead of "X" or "1" (ONE) instead of "X".

 

Again, for the algebraically challenged: X/X reads "Ex over ex". While "LN(X)/X" reads "El-en ex over ex". And "LIM" reads "limit of". Basic stuff really.

 

So, NO. I'm actually right. "X/X->0" is nonsensical. "lim(ln(x)/x) when x->0" is however NOT. The lim-ln is an actual correctly stated mathematical statement.

 

 

Listen, I have been writing so much and so fast, I made an accidental error. By accident I wrote x/x. I did not mean the x to be the same number. It was an accident. If you see all the other times I wrote it, I said 1/x or any number over x. The point is the same. Any number over x as x approaches zero the answer is infinity.

 

Can you agree to that?

[Ouroboros]

Listen, I have been writing so much and so fast, I made an accidental error. By accident I wrote x/x. I did not mean the x to be the same number. It was an accident. If you see all the other times I wrote it, I said 1/x or any number over x. The point is the same. Any number over x as x approaches zero the answer is infinity.

 

 

Can you agree to that?

 

Yes. (except it's +/- infinity, since any number can be a negative number. Negative X will result in negative infinity.)

 

Just don't butcher your math completely.

 

It's confusing as hell when you go back and forth between something that is correct and we agree on to somethung thats sums a bitty somethung strangze andz dunt now if u say this samu thang or nut!? Rayght!? Some correct spelling and grammar helps understanding. Do you agree? And doesn't that apply also to some degree to math? Or can we just write whatever and think that people will understand? f(x gnomes)= is blueberry, therefore abstract water bottle implies grammar infinity. Yes?

 

---

 

Let me explain this a little bit. Imagine if I came to you and said, "I'm are great English spoker cuz I are having Englush degree in PhD superduper major Nobel prize in English speaker languistics yes me is!" Would you think I knew English if I did that? Or would you think that I'm exaggerating a bit and perhaps don't know English that well at all? So ... when you're arguing from a math point, try to get it somewhat right. It doesn't have to be perfect, but if it's completely crazy, people (like me) will look at it and thing "he has no clue at all." Do you understand this? You might be right in point, but if your support for you argument sucks, people will discard the whole thing.

[Guest nat]

I tried to keep things simple. Unfortunately the limitations of math have forced me to make the complicated forms of the equations to make the same point. I have to be very careful here. I am sorry I made an accidental mistake. And I did not do that the whole time. I was trying to say any constant number as I did before, and I used x by accident. By the way. I agree with you 100%. Especially around here you have to be very careful. I was not careful enough. It is sad that people will throw out the whole thing because of an accidental error. And there are so many times I said it correctly and people still said the math was bunk. Ok, so i am not the best messenger. Overall, people should be coming to my defense overall and clarify the math if I was not able to and then we could go on to the next point. But the sharks here just want to eat you.

 

Let me be clear here.

Any number from 0 to infinity (not including infinity) times 0=0  

Any number from 1 to infinity times infinity = infinity

The limit of constant numbers (0 not included) over x as x approaches 0 is positive infinity when approached from the positive side and negative infinity when approached from the negative side.

The limit of constant numbers (infinity not included) over x as x approaches infinity is 0.

Infinity times 0 is indeterminate and can equal anything.

 

Can we agree on these mathematical facts?

Does anyone disagree?

 

If we can agree on the math, we can then discuss the correlations.

[boftx]

nat,

 

I know I just said we should forget the math and focus on ein sof, but....

 

You have just demonstrated one of the problems with division by zero, unless I am mistaken (I am not a mathematician so I could be wrong here.) For 1 over x where x is positive then as x approaches 0 the quotient approaches infinity. By the same token for 1 over x where x is negative then as x approaches 0 the quotient approaches negative infinity.

 

How does one decide if 1/0 is positive or negative infinity when starting at 0 and not approaching it? By definition 0 is neither positive or negative.

 

Again, I think this discussion will be much more productive to drop the math aspect of this as being tangent to the larger questions regarding ein sof.

[ContraBardus]

So you can't admit you were wrong on what you said about Kabbalah.

 

 

So what if I was? I see no reason to think that your personal assessment of that mythical book is any more valid than any other Jew I've spoken to about it. None of them have agreed with your ideas about Ein-Sof. In fact, they all suggested that the idea of the holy trinity was in fact stolen from the Kabbalah. I'm not speaking of my personal understanding of the Kabbalah here, but what I was told by practicing Jews, none of which agree with your 'it's a completely different thing' assessment of Ein-sof and Yahweh. What I read in the Kabbalah seemed to support their views more than yours. Though, I admit it didn't make much sense to me, but then neither did the Bible, so that's pretty irrelevant.

 

It doesn't matter if it's the same being or if it is just an aspect of it anyway. You're making a big deal out of an unimportant detail that really has no impact on the overall discussion. As far as I can tell you are doing this for no other reason than to distract from the problems in your own argument. It's still a 'God' based on the iron age beliefs of the Hebrew religion. It's a specific God that is entirely based on Abrahamic relgion. You're talking about a mystical being from a mystical book. The god you're referring to in your argument is the specific god of the Jewish faith. Not some 'gender neutral undefined blanket god of indeterminate origins and no specific qualities' that you later suggested.

 

At the end of the day, it's irrelevant what type of God you were speaking of anyway. It's still too poorly defined to be of any use, and your arguments are no more valid if that god is the one of the Bible/Torah, or some separate Kabbala God that is the aspect or origin of said god. It's still a lot of irrelevant poorly defined bunk that you're trying to wedge into a sort of math problem that doesn't prove or even actually allude to anything. You've failed at any sort of correlation regardless of how you vaguely define God/Infinite Noodles/All Being Source of Pixie dust/or whatever you want to call it.

 

You just don't have a compelling case and what little argument you did make at the beginning of the thread has only gotten worse and less rational as you've gone deeper into this. Your definitions have gotten softer, and your conjecture has grown worse. You started off with something that was a bit irrational and somewhat illogical and have dived off the deep end into complete silliness. You've not posted anything that isn't either a distraction away from the problems in your argument, or a logical fallacy ridden block of meaningless non-mathematical spiritualism. What little sense you made to begin with has given way to a rather Glen Beckian rant of nonsensical numbers and mystical buzzwords.

 

You're not making any sense, and the problem isn't on our end.

[Guest nat]

nat,

 

I know I just said we should forget the math and focus on ein sof, but....

 

You have just demonstrated one of the problems with division by zero, unless I am mistaken (I am not a mathematician so I could be wrong here.) For 1 over x where x is positive then as x approaches 0 the quotient approaches infinity. By the same token for 1 over x where x is negative then as x approaches 0 the quotient approaches negative infinity.

 

How does one decide if 1/0 is positive or negative infinity when starting at 0 and not approaching it? By definition 0 is neither positive or negative.

 

Again, I think this discussion will be much more productive to drop the math aspect of this as being tangent to the larger questions regarding ein sof.

You make a good point. Classical mathematics stays away from division by actual zero by introducing limits. You either approach 0 from the positive side or from the negative side. Classical math stays away from division by 0. (I mentioned before that i hope math can get beyond this limitation, but it likely won't anytime soon.)

 

We will hopefully move on to the other stuff once i can get people to stop calling the math bunk.