Mathematical Proof Of God

[BlackCat]

 

Err, the same Jesus who called a woman Dog, and made her beg before he helped her rid her son of a demon?

 

He was being kind of a dick, but I suppose since it was just the one time it's just evidence of his 'humanity' so to speak.

 

At any rate, yes, Jesus himself was very good about women with one notable exception, and he did end up helping her anyway, his followers were not. Most of the stories in the NT where Jesus interacts with women start out with his 'buddies' being dickholes. There is no evidence they ever learned any better that I am aware of. So no, I don't see the first followers of Jesus being any more awesome than anyone else at the time. They probably held views similar if not exactly the same as the Jews of the period, which makes sense if you think about it, and their time with Jesus did not appear to change that.

 

Then Paul came along...

 

Put simply, the views of Christians concerning women were probably no better than anyone else in the region at the time, and did not improve with time, but rather degraded, where as the Jews actually improved in that area and were pretty much better about it than pretty much anyone else in the world consistently.

 

I did make mention that there -were- problems with Judaism's views on women, particularly non Jewish women, who did not have the same rights and protections under Jewish Law. Though, they weren't that bad off either comparatively speaking. At the time, the Jews were the best about it than pretty much any other culture, and remained consistently better about it over the centuries, they also improved over time. Not even some modern western societies are as good about the treatment of women as the Jews are. We're catching up, but they've been ahead of the curve on that one for centuries. As treatment of women in various religions go, Jewish women have it better than the women of just about every other faith and have had it better for a very long time.

 

 

You cite a good example of how Yeshua has been misunderstood all these centuries.  The account of the gentile woman you mention, is actually a beautiful example of how Yeshua educated his people (the Jews).  If I may quote from the book I mentioned 'Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes'.  Chapter 16 is devoted to the Syro-Phoenician woman and the opening paragraph says:

 

''This story is often viewed as a troubling embarassment.  A sincere foreign woman seeks help from Jesus.  At first he ignores her.  He then appears to exhibit racism and insensitivity to her suffering as he insults her in public.  Yes, he does finally heal her daughter, but only after the mother demonstrates a willingness to be publicly humiliated.  Why, the reader inevitably asks, is this poor woman 'put through the wringer' before Jesus accepts to exorcise the demon from her daughter?  These serious concerns virtually guarantee the authenticity of the story.  How then can the story be best understood?''

 

The concluding paragraph of the chapter says:

 

1. Jesus is declared by a gentile to be Lord and Son of David.....

 

2. Jesus breaks 1) the gender barrier by talking to a woman, and 2) a racial barrier by healing a gentile.

 

3.  Jesus compliments the woman by giving her a tough exam. A good coach honours a good runner by placing her in the toughest race.

 

4. Evil cannot be redeemed until it is exposed.  In his dialogue with the woman Jesus exposes deep prejudices in the hearts of his disciples......

 

5. Jesus cares about the woman, her daughter and his disciples.  The story demonstrates that caring.

 

6. The woman is praised by Jesus for her faith.  She beleives that he has the power of God to heal and that he cares for all people, particularly those who suffer. That faith is sustained.

 

The chapter discusses every aspect of the story.  Let's take the reference to 'little dogs'.  Bailey says:

 

''The reference to dogs is primarily  for the disciples' education.  Jesus is saying to them, ''I know you think gentiles are dogs and you want me to treat them as such!  But -pay attention- this is where your biases lead.  Are you comfortable with this scene?''

 

I don't want to quote too much.  It's a very interesting read though.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA,

 

You are by far the smartest among any of us on this forum. Admittedly, I can't speak with the accuracy that your level of knowledge would demand. I am ready to accept any correction you advise concerning empty space, space-time, or whatever. I hope, though, that even on your level of intelligence you can discern what I am trying to get across and the conceptual arguments I am trying to make. I wish, though, that you would come to my defense, if not on an argument, at least that I should not be ridiculed and that I am not stupid or full of ****. Your words, attitude, intelligence, and complete civility carry a lot of weight. Maybe you don't realize what you can accomplish.

 

 

Thank you for the kind words Nat.

 

However, I can't possibly accept that... 'I'm the smartest among any of us in this forum'.  I may have a limited amount of knowledge about a very specific branch of one of the sciences, but that's all.  Anything I can write about cosmology and astrophysics will fall far short of Bhim's standard.  After all, I'm a self-taught amateur astronomer who reads up a lot about these things, whereas he's a trained astrophysicist who's making a career out this scientific discipline.

 

Sadly, I cannot come to your defense here.

 

For me to do that I'd first have to have sufficient knowledge of the Torah (from a purely Judaic standpoint), sufficient knowledge of the Kabbalah and sufficient knowledge of much else, I imagine.  Though I do know something of what Christian's refer to as the Old Testament, because I'm an Ex-Christian, that knowledge was assimilated only thru the lens of born-again Evangelical Christianity. And we both know how different that is from the original beliefs of the Jewish people, right?  So, on that score, I'd be no help to you.

 

Secondly, as an atheist I'd also be poor company for you.

To be honest, I really can't see the need for a spirituality that's rooted in the words and concepts of ancient texts, whatever their culture of origin.  I find our modern-day understanding of the universe and reality much more fulfilling and uplifting than anything from thousands of years ago.  Also, as an atheist, I feel no requirement to try and link the Kabbalah to cutting-edge physics, as I see you've done here...   "By the way, BAA, I have heard that the 10 +1 dimensions correlate tho the kabbalistic 10 +1 sephirot. There are 10 regular sephirot. The extra one would be daa't which is among the sephirot but not exactly one of them, or perhaps it is ein sof. Just sayin"  Please note that I'm not saying you're wrong or that I disagree with this kind of linkage, Nat.  It's just that I see no real need for it, ok? If it works for you, that's fine by me.

 

Lastly, my one concern was over the issue of the accuracy of the science discussed in this thread.  Since you've been good enough to read my points on the matter and are open to them, that pretty much concludes my business here.  I've no real wish to get drawn into anything else, if that's ok with you.  So, thanks for giving me a fair hearing and now it's time for me to take my leave.

 

All the best,

 

BAA

 

[Guest r3alchild]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have a question, who was the first people to discover the mathematical equation of infinity.

The earliest known usage of the concept of infinity is Greek. Zeno of Elia is the first known to use an incomplete concept of infinity called 'improper' or 'potential' infinity in mathematics in the 4th century BC.

 

Potential infinity is when you get closer and closer to, but never actually reach, infinity. For example, when counting a sequence of numbers in order '1,2,3,4,5,6...' you can keep going endlessly and never finish counting but you don't ever actually get to 'infinity'. Kind of like trying to sail or walk off the edge of the world by moving in a single direction. No matter how far you move in that direction or how fast you go, you never get to the horizon, you'll see that the horizon never gets closer or further away. It's a concept of endlessness, but a concept that is 'always in motion' so to speak. A never ending sequence that never reaches it's 'destination'.

 

Archimedes is the first known use of 'actual' or 'proper' infinity as we know it today in the 3rd century BC.

 

Actual infinity is a completed infinity. The sequence is already finished. It's treated as one number, a complete set, it already is infinity and isn't an ongoing sequence.

 

For example, two parallel lines intersect at infinity, [never]. <==========> The lines are assumed to extend indefinitely in either direction and are not 'moving towards' infinity as they would if they were just potentially infinite lines. They have 'already' reached infinity and are considered endless to begin with.

So did the bible ever infer this mathematical concept of infinity?

No. There are some concepts similar to infinity, but nothing like mathematical infinity or direct mention of the concept of infinity. Some things to the effect of God being eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc, but no mention of actual infinity that I can recall, certainly not mathematical infinity at the least.

Well if thats true then its correlation to jehova god is just mathematical slight of hand. I would have liked it more if the op made a correlation to something more universally accepted as unquantifiable, like love.

[Guest r3alchild]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have a question, who was the first people to discover the mathematical equation of infinity.

The earliest known usage of the concept of infinity is Greek. Zeno of Elia is the first known to use an incomplete concept of infinity called 'improper' or 'potential' infinity in mathematics in the 4th century BC.

 

Potential infinity is when you get closer and closer to, but never actually reach, infinity. For example, when counting a sequence of numbers in order '1,2,3,4,5,6...' you can keep going endlessly and never finish counting but you don't ever actually get to 'infinity'. Kind of like trying to sail or walk off the edge of the world by moving in a single direction. No matter how far you move in that direction or how fast you go, you never get to the horizon, you'll see that the horizon never gets closer or further away. It's a concept of endlessness, but a concept that is 'always in motion' so to speak. A never ending sequence that never reaches it's 'destination'.

 

Archimedes is the first known use of 'actual' or 'proper' infinity as we know it today in the 3rd century BC.

 

Actual infinity is a completed infinity. The sequence is already finished. It's treated as one number, a complete set, it already is infinity and isn't an ongoing sequence.

 

For example, two parallel lines intersect at infinity, [never]. <==========> The lines are assumed to extend indefinitely in either direction and are not 'moving towards' infinity as they would if they were just potentially infinite lines. They have 'already' reached infinity and are considered endless to begin with.

So did the bible ever infer this mathematical concept of infinity?

No. There are some concepts similar to infinity, but nothing like mathematical infinity or direct mention of the concept of infinity. Some things to the effect of God being eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc, but no mention of actual infinity that I can recall, certainly not mathematical infinity at the least.

Well if thats true then its correlation to jehova god is just mathematical slight of hand. I would have liked it more if the op made a correlation to something more universally accepted as unquantifiable, like love or the universe. The universe itself is a much better example to correlate infinity, first because you can see it and test its elements. By that fact alone is the universe god? but then is the op claiming that god is some sort distinct entity thats infinity? I wonder? but since no one knows if god exists and there is no testable data of god in the first place is the op making a strawman?

 

I read the infinity equation on some other sites and people have diffrent opinions to the math that the op posted, so I don't know which theory is correct.

[ContraBardus]

 

 

Err, the same Jesus who called a woman Dog, and made her beg before he helped her rid her son of a demon?

 

He was being kind of a dick, but I suppose since it was just the one time it's just evidence of his 'humanity' so to speak.

 

At any rate, yes, Jesus himself was very good about women with one notable exception, and he did end up helping her anyway, his followers were not. Most of the stories in the NT where Jesus interacts with women start out with his 'buddies' being dickholes. There is no evidence they ever learned any better that I am aware of. So no, I don't see the first followers of Jesus being any more awesome than anyone else at the time. They probably held views similar if not exactly the same as the Jews of the period, which makes sense if you think about it, and their time with Jesus did not appear to change that.

 

Then Paul came along...

 

Put simply, the views of Christians concerning women were probably no better than anyone else in the region at the time, and did not improve with time, but rather degraded, where as the Jews actually improved in that area and were pretty much better about it than pretty much anyone else in the world consistently.

 

I did make mention that there -were- problems with Judaism's views on women, particularly non Jewish women, who did not have the same rights and protections under Jewish Law. Though, they weren't that bad off either comparatively speaking. At the time, the Jews were the best about it than pretty much any other culture, and remained consistently better about it over the centuries, they also improved over time. Not even some modern western societies are as good about the treatment of women as the Jews are. We're catching up, but they've been ahead of the curve on that one for centuries. As treatment of women in various religions go, Jewish women have it better than the women of just about every other faith and have had it better for a very long time.

 

 

You cite a good example of how Yeshua has been misunderstood all these centuries.  The account of the gentile woman you mention, is actually a beautiful example of how Yeshua educated his people (the Jews).  If I may quote from the book I mentioned 'Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes'.  Chapter 16 is devoted to the Syro-Phoenician woman and the opening paragraph says:

 

''This story is often viewed as a troubling embarassment.  A sincere foreign woman seeks help from Jesus.  At first he ignores her.  He then appears to exhibit racism and insensitivity to her suffering as he insults her in public.  Yes, he does finally heal her daughter, but only after the mother demonstrates a willingness to be publicly humiliated.  Why, the reader inevitably asks, is this poor woman 'put through the wringer' before Jesus accepts to exorcise the demon from her daughter?  These serious concerns virtually guarantee the authenticity of the story.  How then can the story be best understood?''

 

The concluding paragraph of the chapter says:

 

1. Jesus is declared by a gentile to be Lord and Son of David.....

 

2. Jesus breaks 1) the gender barrier by talking to a woman, and 2) a racial barrier by healing a gentile.

 

3.  Jesus compliments the woman by giving her a tough exam. A good coach honours a good runner by placing her in the toughest race.

 

4. Evil cannot be redeemed until it is exposed.  In his dialogue with the woman Jesus exposes deep prejudices in the hearts of his disciples......

 

5. Jesus cares about the woman, her daughter and his disciples.  The story demonstrates that caring.

 

6. The woman is praised by Jesus for her faith.  She beleives that he has the power of God to heal and that he cares for all people, particularly those who suffer. That faith is sustained.

 

The chapter discusses every aspect of the story.  Let's take the reference to 'little dogs'.  Bailey says:

 

''The reference to dogs is primarily  for the disciples' education.  Jesus is saying to them, ''I know you think gentiles are dogs and you want me to treat them as such!  But -pay attention- this is where your biases lead.  Are you comfortable with this scene?''

 

I don't want to quote too much.  It's a very interesting read though.

 

 

I've got issues with this. I'm not trying to jump on your case, my writing style can be a bit sarcastic, so take it with a grain of salt, or sugar if you prefer.

 

Well, points three through five sound an awful lot like justifications and excuses. More to the point, the disciples didn't learn, their continued idiocy speaks to that. So, the lesson was wasted and the woman humiliated for no reason. I'd think the Son of God would realize that was the case. Moreover, calling someone a Dog in the culture in that region at the time is not like calling someone a 'dog' in western society, it is considered a far worse insult.

 

It sounds to me more like a case of someone not wanting to accept that Jesus did something mean to somebody. I realize that he did indeed help the woman in the end, and that he's not a bad guy in the NT. I just don't see the need to go through all these convolutions to try and excuse it. It's a work of fiction of course and may have been meant to show what this suggests, but the truth is that even if he was 'teaching his disciples a lesson' it still does not justify what he did to that woman. It is a poorly written moral fable that fails to show such mercy and instead makes the 'Son of Man' out to be a callous prick. Of course Christians will jump through hoops to try and justify it, but that doesn't mean that it's another example of how the authors of the Bible viewed such women. Her feelings were secondary to teaching a bunch of thick headed morons a lesson they didn't learn anyway. That was worth humiliating and degrading her over, just to show the band of fools who hung around him all the time they were dicks? Couldn't he have just told them? I'm pretty sure he could have, and that they would have had a better chance of retaining it if he'd just told them directly. "Hey, quit being assholes." As dumb as they were, they did think he was the 'Son of God' and they probably would have at least tried to listen and do what he said.

 

As a moralistic tale, that particular story is made completely of fail.

 

Besides, more to the overall point, the Jesus that exists in the Bible is most likely fictional. I doubt he was actually the upstanding moral beacon of awesomeness he's portrayed as. If he existed at all, his views about the treatment and role of women were probably pretty much the same as the Jews, after all he was one of them. I don't think his 'teachings' if there were actually any teachings likely diverged much from Judaism at the time. A lot of the Bible is crap that was added later on and embellished, it's not a contemporary writing after all. Even once the beginnings of it surfaced, you had all sorts of differing accounts of the same story, books that didn't make it into the Bible when they voted on what 'made the cut', and even then they couldn't iron out the details or sort out all the contradictions that are in it now. Fantasy Jesus was indeed a nice guy, but I'm talking about real historical Jews who actually existed and left evidence of their existence in the form of writings and contemporary accounts of them by others.

 

I really don't see how 'nice' Bible Jesus was has any relevance to how actual people who really existed treated women. It's kind of like comparing the morals of Gandalf to the morals of Abraham Lincoln and arguing about which one was more important to the development of the country.

[ContraBardus]

 

 

 

 

 

I have a question, who was the first people to discover the mathematical equation of infinity.

The earliest known usage of the concept of infinity is Greek. Zeno of Elia is the first known to use an incomplete concept of infinity called 'improper' or 'potential' infinity in mathematics in the 4th century BC.

 

Potential infinity is when you get closer and closer to, but never actually reach, infinity. For example, when counting a sequence of numbers in order '1,2,3,4,5,6...' you can keep going endlessly and never finish counting but you don't ever actually get to 'infinity'. Kind of like trying to sail or walk off the edge of the world by moving in a single direction. No matter how far you move in that direction or how fast you go, you never get to the horizon, you'll see that the horizon never gets closer or further away. It's a concept of endlessness, but a concept that is 'always in motion' so to speak. A never ending sequence that never reaches it's 'destination'.

 

Archimedes is the first known use of 'actual' or 'proper' infinity as we know it today in the 3rd century BC.

 

Actual infinity is a completed infinity. The sequence is already finished. It's treated as one number, a complete set, it already is infinity and isn't an ongoing sequence.

 

For example, two parallel lines intersect at infinity, [never]. <==========> The lines are assumed to extend indefinitely in either direction and are not 'moving towards' infinity as they would if they were just potentially infinite lines. They have 'already' reached infinity and are considered endless to begin with.

So did the bible ever infer this mathematical concept of infinity?

No. There are some concepts similar to infinity, but nothing like mathematical infinity or direct mention of the concept of infinity. Some things to the effect of God being eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc, but no mention of actual infinity that I can recall, certainly not mathematical infinity at the least.

Well if thats true then its correlation to jehova god is just mathematical slight of hand. I would have liked it more if the op made a correlation to something more universally accepted as unquantifiable, like love. I wonder? since no one knows if god exists and there is no testable data of god in the first place is the op making a strawman?

 

I read the infinity equation on some other sites and people have diffrent opinions to the math that the op posted, so I don't know which theory is correct.

 

 

Yeah, pretty much. The infinity * 0 = God, or however you want to formulate it, thing is about as Mathematical as Creationism is Evolutionary Science. Not testable, unverifiable, and easily complicated by tossing about random variables and making word spaghetti out of terms like, infinity, nothingness, eternal, energy, zero, etc. Enough to make anyone without mathematical training think it sounds credible enough to not argue or think they're in over their heads. I wouldn't even really call what he's been posting Math to be honest. It's just religious philosophy that involves numbers and abstracts like infinity and nothing.

[Guest r3alchild]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have a question, who was the first people to discover the mathematical equation of infinity.

The earliest known usage of the concept of infinity is Greek. Zeno of Elia is the first known to use an incomplete concept of infinity called 'improper' or 'potential' infinity in mathematics in the 4th century BC.

 

Potential infinity is when you get closer and closer to, but never actually reach, infinity. For example, when counting a sequence of numbers in order '1,2,3,4,5,6...' you can keep going endlessly and never finish counting but you don't ever actually get to 'infinity'. Kind of like trying to sail or walk off the edge of the world by moving in a single direction. No matter how far you move in that direction or how fast you go, you never get to the horizon, you'll see that the horizon never gets closer or further away. It's a concept of endlessness, but a concept that is 'always in motion' so to speak. A never ending sequence that never reaches it's 'destination'.

 

Archimedes is the first known use of 'actual' or 'proper' infinity as we know it today in the 3rd century BC.

 

Actual infinity is a completed infinity. The sequence is already finished. It's treated as one number, a complete set, it already is infinity and isn't an ongoing sequence.

 

For example, two parallel lines intersect at infinity, [never]. <==========> The lines are assumed to extend indefinitely in either direction and are not 'moving towards' infinity as they would if they were just potentially infinite lines. They have 'already' reached infinity and are considered endless to begin with.

So did the bible ever infer this mathematical concept of infinity?

No. There are some concepts similar to infinity, but nothing like mathematical infinity or direct mention of the concept of infinity. Some things to the effect of God being eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc, but no mention of actual infinity that I can recall, certainly not mathematical infinity at the least.

Well if thats true then its correlation to jehova god is just mathematical slight of hand. I would have liked it more if the op made a correlation to something more universally accepted as unquantifiable, like love. I wonder? since no one knows if god exists and there is no testable data of god in the first place is the op making a strawman?

 

I read the infinity equation on some other sites and people have diffrent opinions to the math that the op posted, so I don't know which theory is correct.

Yeah, pretty much. The infinity * 0 = God, or however you want to formulate it, thing is about as Mathematical as Creationism is Evolutionary Science. Not testable, unverifiable, and easily complicated by tossing about random variables and making word spaghetti out of terms like, infinity, nothingness, eternal, energy, zero, etc. Enough to make anyone without mathematical training think it sounds credible enough to not argue or think they're in over their heads. I wouldn't even really call what he's been posting Math to be honest. It's just religious philosophy that involves numbers and abstracts like infinity and nothing.

Yeah

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

 

 

I have a question, who was the first people to discover the mathematical equation of infinity.

The earliest known usage of the concept of infinity is Greek. Zeno of Elia is the first known to use an incomplete concept of infinity called 'improper' or 'potential' infinity in mathematics in the 4th century BC.

 

Potential infinity is when you get closer and closer to, but never actually reach, infinity. For example, when counting a sequence of numbers in order '1,2,3,4,5,6...' you can keep going endlessly and never finish counting but you don't ever actually get to 'infinity'. Kind of like trying to sail or walk off the edge of the world by moving in a single direction. No matter how far you move in that direction or how fast you go, you never get to the horizon, you'll see that the horizon never gets closer or further away. It's a concept of endlessness, but a concept that is 'always in motion' so to speak. A never ending sequence that never reaches it's 'destination'.

 

Archimedes is the first known use of 'actual' or 'proper' infinity as we know it today in the 3rd century BC.

 

Actual infinity is a completed infinity. The sequence is already finished. It's treated as one number, a complete set, it already is infinity and isn't an ongoing sequence.

 

For example, two parallel lines intersect at infinity, [never]. <==========> The lines are assumed to extend indefinitely in either direction and are not 'moving towards' infinity as they would if they were just potentially infinite lines. They have 'already' reached infinity and are considered endless to begin with.

So did the bible ever infer this mathematical concept of infinity?

No. There are some concepts similar to infinity, but nothing like mathematical infinity or direct mention of the concept of infinity. Some things to the effect of God being eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc, but no mention of actual infinity that I can recall, certainly not mathematical infinity at the least.

Well if thats true then its correlation to jehova god is just mathematical slight of hand. I would have liked it more if the op made a correlation to something more universally accepted as unquantifiable, like love.

 

The Torah/bible does not have to make reference to mathematical infinity in order to make a correlation to it now that it has been discovered. Since the conceptual form of infinite things is similar to the mathematical infinity, the way math works with infinity can give good insight into how infinite things can also work.

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have a question, who was the first people to discover the mathematical equation of infinity.

The earliest known usage of the concept of infinity is Greek. Zeno of Elia is the first known to use an incomplete concept of infinity called 'improper' or 'potential' infinity in mathematics in the 4th century BC.

 

Potential infinity is when you get closer and closer to, but never actually reach, infinity. For example, when counting a sequence of numbers in order '1,2,3,4,5,6...' you can keep going endlessly and never finish counting but you don't ever actually get to 'infinity'. Kind of like trying to sail or walk off the edge of the world by moving in a single direction. No matter how far you move in that direction or how fast you go, you never get to the horizon, you'll see that the horizon never gets closer or further away. It's a concept of endlessness, but a concept that is 'always in motion' so to speak. A never ending sequence that never reaches it's 'destination'.

 

Archimedes is the first known use of 'actual' or 'proper' infinity as we know it today in the 3rd century BC.

 

Actual infinity is a completed infinity. The sequence is already finished. It's treated as one number, a complete set, it already is infinity and isn't an ongoing sequence.

 

For example, two parallel lines intersect at infinity, [never]. <==========> The lines are assumed to extend indefinitely in either direction and are not 'moving towards' infinity as they would if they were just potentially infinite lines. They have 'already' reached infinity and are considered endless to begin with.

So did the bible ever infer this mathematical concept of infinity?

No. There are some concepts similar to infinity, but nothing like mathematical infinity or direct mention of the concept of infinity. Some things to the effect of God being eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc, but no mention of actual infinity that I can recall, certainly not mathematical infinity at the least.

Well if thats true then its correlation to jehova god is just mathematical slight of hand. I would have liked it more if the op made a correlation to something more universally accepted as unquantifiable, like love. I wonder? since no one knows if god exists and there is no testable data of god in the first place is the op making a strawman?

 

I read the infinity equation on some other sites and people have diffrent opinions to the math that the op posted, so I don't know which theory is correct.

Yeah, pretty much. The infinity * 0 = God, or however you want to formulate it, thing is about as Mathematical as Creationism is Evolutionary Science. Not testable, unverifiable, and easily complicated by tossing about random variables and making word spaghetti out of terms like, infinity, nothingness, eternal, energy, zero, etc. Enough to make anyone without mathematical training think it sounds credible enough to not argue or think they're in over their heads. I wouldn't even really call what he's been posting Math to be honest. It's just religious philosophy that involves numbers and abstracts like infinity and nothing.

Yeah

 

Are you guys not listening here.

 

I clarified how I backed off the original post.

 

And I didn't say infinity *0 = God.

 

I said infinity *0 can = anything.

 

The math part is a simple correlation to explain how we got here.

 

I gave logic to something eternal. To me God, yes, to others not. I showed how in math more and more 0 is still 0. I showed that multiplied or divided infinity is still infinity.

 

Neither 0 or infinity have a opening for change.

 

RATHER

 

It is the pull of the opposite forces on each other that brings about everything between them in a similar way to that infinity *0 can = anything. The speed of each pull can be adjusted so that the result can be anything in-between.

 

This is mostly philosophical, but the math gives it a good grounding to relate to it.

 

OK?

[mymistake]

 

 

The Torah/bible does not have to make reference to mathematical infinity in order to make a correlation to it now that it has been discovered. 

 

 

Just like the Torah does not have to make reference to eugenics in order to have always been right about eugenics being wrong!     

 

Why the Torah can say all kinds of things about subjects that the Torah doesn't mention at all.  You just need the Holy Specter in your heart to guide you to the right interpretation.    

[Guest nat]

MM

 

You are being juvenile.

 

How do you think religious people live in modern society based on the Torah?

 

We apply it.

 

Orthodox Jews don't turn on electricity on the Sabbath, because the religious leaders determined that it was a form of making a fire.

 

Don't use your own juvenile biases against me when you have no clue to the process we use.

 

To ridicule a basic standard process of thousands of people and millions of people of various religions based on your juvenile narrow mindedness is complete bigotry.

[Guest nat]

 

BAA,

 

You are by far the smartest among any of us on this forum. Admittedly, I can't speak with the accuracy that your level of knowledge would demand. I am ready to accept any correction you advise concerning empty space, space-time, or whatever. I hope, though, that even on your level of intelligence you can discern what I am trying to get across and the conceptual arguments I am trying to make. I wish, though, that you would come to my defense, if not on an argument, at least that I should not be ridiculed and that I am not stupid or full of ****. Your words, attitude, intelligence, and complete civility carry a lot of weight. Maybe you don't realize what you can accomplish.

 

 

Thank you for the kind words Nat.

 

However, I can't possibly accept that... 'I'm the smartest among any of us in this forum'.  I may have a limited amount of knowledge about a very specific branch of one of the sciences, but that's all.  Anything I can write about cosmology and astrophysics will fall far short of Bhim's standard.  After all, I'm a self-taught amateur astronomer who reads up a lot about these things, whereas he's a trained astrophysicist who's making a career out this scientific discipline.

 

Sadly, I cannot come to your defense here.

 

For me to do that I'd first have to have sufficient knowledge of the Torah (from a purely Judaic standpoint), sufficient knowledge of the Kabbalah and sufficient knowledge of much else, I imagine.  Though I do know something of what Christian's refer to as the Old Testament, because I'm an Ex-Christian, that knowledge was assimilated only thru the lens of born-again Evangelical Christianity. And we both know how different that is from the original beliefs of the Jewish people, right?  So, on that score, I'd be no help to you.

 

Secondly, as an atheist I'd also be poor company for you.

To be honest, I really can't see the need for a spirituality that's rooted in the words and concepts of ancient texts, whatever their culture of origin.  I find our modern-day understanding of the universe and reality much more fulfilling and uplifting than anything from thousands of years ago.  Also, as an atheist, I feel no requirement to try and link the Kabbalah to cutting-edge physics, as I see you've done here...   "By the way, BAA, I have heard that the 10 +1 dimensions correlate tho the kabbalistic 10 +1 sephirot. There are 10 regular sephirot. The extra one would be daa't which is among the sephirot but not exactly one of them, or perhaps it is ein sof. Just sayin"  Please note that I'm not saying you're wrong or that I disagree with this kind of linkage, Nat.  It's just that I see no real need for it, ok? If it works for you, that's fine by me.

 

Lastly, my one concern was over the issue of the accuracy of the science discussed in this thread.  Since you've been good enough to read my points on the matter and are open to them, that pretty much concludes my business here.  I've no real wish to get drawn into anything else, if that's ok with you.  So, thanks for giving me a fair hearing and now it's time for me to take my leave.

 

All the best,

 

BAA

 

BAA,

I understand where you are coming from. I do have an appreciation for ancient Jewish texts because it is my inheritance and I find great meaning in it. If certain factors are not there, then it loses appeal the same way I have little interest in ancient mayan texts. 

 

I still think that the inherent mysteries about the origins of life and the strange things that science uncovers in the subatomic world, black holes, singularity and things you know much more about than I should at least let you keep an open mind to what may be behind it all. The stuff we further learn might lead us in a completely different direction than we are going now.

[mymistake]

MM

 

You are being juvenile.

 

Not at all.  Your religion causes you to make things up and I called you on it.

 

 

 

How do you think religious people live in modern society based on the Torah?

 

Through willful ignorance, self delusion and cognitive dissonance - very similar to how Bible believing Christians get by.

 

 

We apply it.

 

Orthodox Jews don't turn on electricity on the Sabbath, because the religious leaders determined that it was a form of making a fire.

 

Don't use your own juvenile biases against me when you have no clue to the process we use.

 

To ridicule a basic standard process of thousands of people and millions of people of various religions based on your juvenile narrow mindedness is complete bigotry.

 

I find it funny how you misuse these terms.  It almost looks like you don't know what they mean.  It doesn't matter how many millions or billions of people have religion because popularity doesn't make something true.

 

[Guest nat]

 

MM

 

You are being juvenile.

 

Not at all.  Your religion causes you to make things up and I called you on it.

 

 

 

How do you think religious people live in modern society based on the Torah?

 

Through willful ignorance, self delusion and cognitive dissonance - very similar to how Bible believing Christians get by.

 

 

We apply it.

 

Orthodox Jews don't turn on electricity on the Sabbath, because the religious leaders determined that it was a form of making a fire.

 

Don't use your own juvenile biases against me when you have no clue to the process we use.

 

To ridicule a basic standard process of thousands of people and millions of people of various religions based on your juvenile narrow mindedness is complete bigotry.

 

I find it funny how you misuse these terms.  It almost looks like you don't know what they mean.  It doesn't matter how many millions or billions of people have religion because popularity doesn't make something true.

 

 

Make things up?

 

Who said that i said that the Torah MENTIONS eugenics and could not admit that I did not.

 

Who asked me to bring a source from the Torah to back up my claims and then criticizes me for bringing a source from the Torah?

 

Who then calls me delusional?????????

 

What planet are you from???

 

Your animosity blinds you to say the stupidest things.

 

It so bothers you that people apply lessons based on texts from earlier generations.

 

It is so hard for you to comprehend a process for doing so?

 

There is something wrong with you.

 

Don't you live in America?

 

Doesn't the supreme court interpret the constitution?

 

Aren't our basic rights determined by applying the constitution which was written generations ago?

[Guest nat]

For those who remain silent:

 

Edmund Burke (1729-1797) - English statesman:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

[mymistake]

 

Who said that i said that the Torah MENTIONS eugenics and could not admit that I did not.

 

Ah, so your religion has not opposed eugenics all along?  Glad to hear it.  I guess eugenics is not an answer to the Sam Harris challenge because today science has the best explanation for why Nazi propaganda was false.

 

 

 

 

Who asked me to bring a source from the Torah to back up my claims and then criticizes me for bringing a source from the Torah?

 

It's not my fault that the Old Testament is full of racism and genocide.  I'm just saying that if the racism and genocide is what makes Nazi eugenics bad then maybe a book that isn't filled with racism and genocide would be a better moral choice for comparison.  The Nazis exterminated somewhere around twelve million people but in the story God wipes out all life on Earth except for the passengers on a boat.  An angry, killer God isn't morally superior.  So the Bible doesn't really have a moral victory over eugenics here, let alone science.

 

 

 

 

It so bothers you that people apply lessons based on texts from earlier generations.

 

Not at all.  It's fine for people to learn from the past.  But claiming that some Iron Age text covers a modern topic is false.  Thinking that the Bible applies to the modern world is both absurd and dangerous.  When people believe they should live their life according to an ignorant book they run the risk of disaster.  There are thousands of examples of people who ignored modern medicine for the sake of appealing to God and suffered for it.

 

 

 

 

Don't you live in America?

 

Doesn't the supreme court interpret the constitution?

 

Aren't our basic rights determined by applying the constitution which was written generations ago?

 

I don't see how that is relevant.  The SC doesn't think the Constitution was handed to us from God and is beyond question.  Over the years many rulings have come down that modernized old concepts.  Show me somebody who thinks atomic bombs are covered by the constitution.   Reasonable people don't because we know the Constitution was written by men who could not foresee the future - just like the men who wrote the Torah couldn't predict the future.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest nat]

 

 

Who said that i said that the Torah MENTIONS eugenics and could not admit that I did not.

 

Ah, so your religion has not opposed eugenics all along?  Glad to hear it.  I guess eugenics is not an answer to the Sam Harris challenge because today science has the best explanation for why Nazi propaganda was false.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't admit you were wrong so you side step the issue.

 

How embarrassing.

 

 

And if you still can't get it,  I said it doesn't mention it, but it opposes the foundation of what eugenics is based on.

 

And yet, you said that I said it MENTIONS it.

 

 

Grow up already.

 

 

And, by the way, I will not be lured into turning this thread into a debate on your narrow minded view of the Torah. 

 

That topic has been debated by far more intelligent people than you and I.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

Who said that i said that the Torah MENTIONS eugenics and could not admit that I did not.

 

Ah, so your religion has not opposed eugenics all along?  Glad to hear it.  I guess eugenics is not an answer to the Sam Harris challenge because today science has the best explanation for why Nazi propaganda was false.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't admit you were wrong so you side step the issue.

 

How embarrassing.

 

 

And if you still can't get it,  I said it doesn't mention it, but it opposes the foundation of what eugenics is based on.

 

Grow up already.

 

 

I didn't side step anything.

 

I'm not wrong when you wrote something stupid, changed it, lied about it, got caught, then admitted you wrote it, then tried to blame me then raise a confusing stink about the whole thing.

 

The Torah doesn't oppose the foundation of eugenics because the Torah is a racist book and genetics wouldn't be discovered for thousands of years later.

 

I've proven that Nazi eugenics is not an answer to the Sam Harris challenge.

[Guest nat]

MM,

 

Quote There are thousands of examples of people who ignored modern medicine for the sake of appealing to God and suffered for it.

 

Another fail.

 

The ones that don't take medicine are the ones that don't apply the Torah/bible to modern times.

 

You are swinging in all directions now.

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

 

Who said that i said that the Torah MENTIONS eugenics and could not admit that I did not.

 

Ah, so your religion has not opposed eugenics all along?  Glad to hear it.  I guess eugenics is not an answer to the Sam Harris challenge because today science has the best explanation for why Nazi propaganda was false.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't admit you were wrong so you side step the issue.

 

How embarrassing.

 

 

And if you still can't get it,  I said it doesn't mention it, but it opposes the foundation of what eugenics is based on.

 

Grow up already.

 

 

I didn't side step anything.

 

I'm not wrong when you wrote something stupid, changed it, lied about it, got caught, then admitted you wrote it, then tried to blame me then raise a confusing stink about the whole thing.

 

The Torah doesn't oppose the foundation of eugenics because the Torah is a racist book and genetics wouldn't be discovered for thousands of years later.

 

I've proven that Nazi eugenics is not an answer to the Sam Harris challenge.

 

You are the biggest liar I have ever seen.

 

Show me where I said that the Torah mentions Eugenics. 

 

I wrote that the my religion (i.e. Torah) was always against Eugenics. I later took out the word always.

 

Where did I say that the Torah mentions eugenics.

 

Bring the PROOF idiot!!!

 

Now another lie, you say that I admit that i wrote it.

 

I admitted that I wrote that the Torah mentions eugenics??????????????????????????????

 

Prove it. Show the post. You can't you jerk!

 

You have the I.Q. of a turtle, and even less.

 

Who gives a damn about the Sam Harris challenge when you can't be honest about what is being said.

[Guest nat]

 

 

Nevertheless mainstream scientists got it wrong and had a moral failure.

Moreover, the moral failure would be even if they were right, they were still bigots. 

 

 

Repeating a lie won't make it true.  When can I expect the list of Bible verses that state that eugenics is wrong?  It's just like all the support for all the other claims you have made in this thread - never going to happen.

 

The propaganda of Nazi germany is not science.  Cranks and pseudo science is not science.  When did the scientific method give us an inferior answer but religion has given us a better answer?  (hint - the answer is never)

 

Look up there. You wanted me to bring verses and said it wouldn't happen. And when I brought a verse, you criticized me for quoting the Torah because of your views on it.

 

Idiot!! 

[mymistake]

 

 

 

Where did I say that the Torah mentions eugenics.

 

 

 

We have been over this many times now.  See post 820 on page 41.  

[BlackCat]

Contra, I appreciate your feedback.

 

As we are getting off track from the purpose of this thread, I'll keep my response brief, and if anyone is interested to pursue this particular subject further, I can start a new thread in the theology section.

 

Unlike 'Lord of the Rings', the NT is a collection of stories based on real nations and historical events.  It requires some delving to appreciate and understand what is going on in this particular story of the gentile woman.  I've found this brief article that beautifully explains what is really going on in the story.  Please check it out, so you will see the 'whole picture'. 

 

 http://krwordgazer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/even-dogs-eat-crumbs-jesus-and-syro.html

[mymistake]

 

 

 

Nevertheless mainstream scientists got it wrong and had a moral failure.

Moreover, the moral failure would be even if they were right, they were still bigots. 

 

 

Repeating a lie won't make it true.  When can I expect the list of Bible verses that state that eugenics is wrong?  It's just like all the support for all the other claims you have made in this thread - never going to happen.

 

The propaganda of Nazi germany is not science.  Cranks and pseudo science is not science.  When did the scientific method give us an inferior answer but religion has given us a better answer?  (hint - the answer is never)

 

Look up there. You wanted me to bring verses and said it wouldn't happen. And when I brought a verse, you criticized me for quoting the Torah because of your views on it.

 

Idiot!! 

 

 

You have produced no Bible or Torah verse that says eugenics is wrong.  None!  What you did is produce a verse that says when a man owns two or more women he has to give the first born rights to his first born son regardless of which mother the father likes better.  Only a fundie could imagine that being about eugenics.

 

Meanwhile there are many Old Testament verses that say the Children of Israel should only marry their own kind and the other nations are not good enough for marriage.  Do I really have to look those up in order to show you they exist?  The Torah was written by racists men who thought genocide against their neighbors was a good idea.  It's hardly a good example for the moral failure of Nazi eugenics.  Rather it's partly the inspiration for Nazi eugenics.

 

(Note to other readers:  Further back in the thread nat introduced the concept of the Torah as a moral victory over Nazi eugenics.  I didn't go there.  He did.  I'm just pointing out why nat's claims about it are wrong.)

[midniterider]

For those who remain silent:

 

Edmund Burke (1729-1797) - English statesman:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

 

Triumph of evil... in a web forum? Who is evil? You or your adversaries on the thread?