Mathematical Proof Of God

[florduh]

Yes, the content of the belief system is different, but the style is the same. You know, nonsense claim, failed argument, deny failure, change gears, and so on.

[buffettphan]

Nat: "...will conclude at around post 1000"

 

 

Hopefully!

[Guest nat]

Let me be a little more clear.

 

One can bring up an issues of correlating something infinite and nothingness to the mathematical counterpart with limits.

 

The issue are :

 

With limits you don’t deal with the actual infinity and 0, whereas in the correlation you do.

 

In limits, things are approaching 0 or infinity, but in the correlation they are already there.

 

Limits deal with a defined sense of the undefined, but the correlation does not.

 

I understand all that.

 

Math shuts down and doesn’t deal with the undefined and unfathomable situation. You can’t argue that since math doesn’t deal with it, it doesn’t exist. It doesn’t deal with it because it goes beyond the defined parameters that math is involved with.

 

And for the zillionth time, I was not using the math to prove that the infinite source exists. I used logic for that.

 

Once you believe it and nothingness exist, the simpler correlation would be to infinity *0 itself. I did start with that and I do believe in it, not because I think it is definable, but to see some mathematical results as applied to the indefinable. As it does not rely on conventional math, however, it can easily be disregarded.

 

That is why I brought the correlation to the defined way math deals with these concepts in the nature of limits. Since in the concept of limits, infinity *0 is different than infinity times x or 0 times x, that is a corollary to that the actual infinite and zero work differently in regard to each other than in regard to all else. Many will get stuck on not relating to the actual infinite because it is undefined and unfathomable. But I am not intimidated by that in regard to knowing that it exists and seeing some properties of what results from it. And since in the concept of limits infinity *0 can result into anything (unlike infinity times anything else), this to me points to a greater truth regarding a similar nature to the undefined itself.

 

I understand that I am asking you to stretch your mind into contemplating something by and large un-contemplateable, but once such exists you must give a chance to see some framework in relation to where the results to some degree seem to lead to. It is wrong to think I am trying to define the undefinable. I am using the defined aspects that lead to the indefinable (but don’t get there) to make some sense of how it works when it does get there.

 

If you believe God or something infinite does not exists, then there is no point to all this. But I did give logic to that it does exist and if in any case one believes so, then this is relevant.

[Guest nat]

Yes, the content of the belief system is different, but the style is the same. You know, nonsense claim, failed argument, deny failure, change gears, and so on.

Should i show you where people agreed to my logic and math?

[Guest nat]

Okay, enlighten me, people. This is different from talking to a fundy Christian...how?

 

OC may lose his spot at the top.

 

Carry on

You are a fundamentalist atheist.

 

Everything bad you think about fundamentalist believers is true about you and non belief.

 

You just happen to be in your little cave here, little one.

[Guest nat]

 

Nat: "...will conclude at around post 1000"

 

 

end-is-near.jpg

Hopefully!

 

I ask that it be closed at that point. If it does not close, I will not continue unless people tempt me to respond through ridicule or challenges. 

[Astreja]

The caananites had detestable practices like child sacrifice and incest.

Advocating on behalf of the Canaanites, I'd like to know if you have any non-Biblical evidence for this accusation.

 

Oh, and I'd like to draw your attention to that little incident involving Abraham and Isaac, and would also like to know why "child sacrifice" is detestable when allegedly practised by the Canaanites, but a laudable example of obedience and faith when almost-practised by Abraham.

[mymistake]

 

The caananites had detestable practices like child sacrifice and incest.

Advocating on behalf of the Canaanites, I'd like to know if you have any non-Biblical evidence for this accusation.

 

Oh, and I'd like to draw your attention to that little incident involving Abraham and Isaac, and would also like to know why "child sacrifice" is detestable when allegedly practised by the Canaanites, but a laudable example of obedience and faith when almost-practised by Abraham.

 

 

The Jews were Canaanites.  The Jews had human sacrifice.  There has been an effort to conceal the human sacrifice depicted in the Jewish scriptures but it was an incomplete job at best.

http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm

 

 

It really is a barbaric book and any religion that is based on it has an evil it can't completely eliminate.  

 

I'm sure you will get the same routine from the apologist - insulting anybody who doesn't agree with him, making up stupid excuses for why he can't support his claims, declaring himself victorious, calling for a truce on the insults and then beating his chest about what a great guy/open minded thinker he is.

[Guest nat]

 

The caananites had detestable practices like child sacrifice and incest.

Advocating on behalf of the Canaanites, I'd like to know if you have any non-Biblical evidence for this accusation.

 

Oh, and I'd like to draw your attention to that little incident involving Abraham and Isaac, and would also like to know why "child sacrifice" is detestable when allegedly practised by the Canaanites, but a laudable example of obedience and faith when almost-practised by Abraham.

 

You can't criticize the Torah based on what it says and not defend it based on what it says.

 

The bigger point is that God told Abraham not to sacrifice his son. Can you compare that with one that actually took place?

The Talmud also explains a verse that says that God never intended that an actual sacrifice should take place. 

Furthermore, in Abraham's eyes, if God ordered a child sacrifice, he could also resurrect the child. In fact, the second blessing of the Amidah is explained to correspond to the second patriarch Isaac and it concludes with a blessing that God resurrects the dead.

 

If God indeed orders you to kill your son and you do it and the son is not resurrected, you can be as righteous in your own eyes and framework, but not in anyone else's. Go back and read my post on moral relativism. The point was that as much as in your framework you may be righteous (or not) every other person must look and act upon it within their framework. Unless God resurrects the child or tells everyone that he commanded such without resurrecting the child, then everyone who does not know of God's such command must view it as evil within their framework. But guess what, none of that happened. So good try.

 

 

In any case, the main point of the binding of Isaac was that Abraham sacrificed his sense of self importance and attaining God's gifts through self-merit. Jews say in prayer, all our actions are like void. We still very much need those actions, but they are a means to getting a gift not in merit of those actions and still be glorified in it. When we keep the Torah and yet suffer in this world, we are able to similarly be glorified in a gift that we don't deserve.

[Astreja]

The bigger point is that God told Abraham not to sacrifice his son.

 

Genesis 22:2 reads:

 

 

Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

 

You're worshipping a monster, Nat.  It is never okay to order someone to kill their child.

[Dhampir]

What about Jephtah?  He had to sacrifice his kid, AND she didn't get to come back.  Also, as a sacrifice to god, god's failure to advise against said sacrifice is a tacit condoning of the act.  That he COULD have resurrected the child is meaningless considering he did not.

[Astreja]

Not to mention the fact that "resurrection" is a silly concept that never happens in the real world -- Only in books of mythology.

[Guest nat]

Jephtah's action is not looked upon kindly at all.

[Guest nat]

I said this often before. I did not want to turn this into me defending every questionable thing in the bible. That was not what i sought to engage in. But it happens when Torah gets mentioned and people bring up every conceivable evil. 

 

It is not fair in the one against many nature of this forum that I should have to defend every claim.

 

Much has already been written on all these topics. Go study some more.

[ContraBardus]

 

 

Nat: "...will conclude at around post 1000"

 

 

end-is-near.jpg

Hopefully!

 

[Guest nat]

 

The bigger point is that God told Abraham not to sacrifice his son.

 

Genesis 22:2 reads:

 

 

Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

 

You're worshipping a monster, Nat.  It is never okay to order someone to kill their child.

 

You don't understand moral relativism.  If you are getting the information of the act from the bible then you are in his framework of God telling or indicating to him to do it. Now go and judge it. It is not the same as someone outside the framework relating to it.

 

Abraham was also not completely perfect and he should have understood that it was enough for him to sacrifice his self worth without sacrificing Isaac. The Talmud understands the exact hebrew wording God used indicates that God in the ultimate sense wanted Abraham to bring his son up and take him down. It turns out that all of Abraham's self worth went out the window only because he was about to sacrifice his son. That is the way he did it. Not the ultimate way he was supposed to do it. So he does get some embarrassment from it, yes.

 

Once he gave up his self worth and merit, he could see that God's gifts are not attained that way. 

 

Christians are big on this idea of salvation through grace, but Judaism has a different take on it. Grace is like charity, not glorious at all. God's gifts are glorious grace. For glorious grace, we need to do actions and yet suffer while the evil prosper in this world. When we do something in contrast to exact justice, we can be glorified in a gift that we don't deserve.

 

In any case, in the end he was ordered not to do it.

[Astreja]

Jephtah's action is not looked upon kindly at all.

Well, certainly not by us.

 

So why did Abraham get angelic intervention, but not Jephtah?

 

And what's with this vicious-minded god that wants these sacrifices in the first place?  Be it a dove getting its neck wrung in the temple, or a kid getting trussed up on a mountaintop, it's a stupid thing for a legitimate god to desire.

 

It is not fair in the one against many nature of this forum that I should have to defend every claim.

 

It sounds like you didn't think it through very well when you signed up, then.  What were you expecting would happen -- Mass conversion to your way of thinking?  Equal standing for ideas coming from a book that most of us here have rejected?

 

You don't understand moral relativism.

 

(Springy G reaches for the Clue-By-Four™)  *BONK* 10-minute misconduct for attempted mindreading.

[Dhampir]

Jephtah's action is not looked upon kindly at all.

Maybe not, but there was no intervention.  If god didn't like that action, but took none of his own to prevent it, then clearly child sacrifice was condoned on at least one occasion. I've heard it said that begging god's favor was what caused him to lose his child, but how could that cause god to allow such a sacrifice unto him, if, as you say, it is a detestable thing?  Bottom line, Jephtah's sacrifice was to god, and whether he accepted it as such or not, he did condone it by failing to intervene.  I don't see any handwaving here; are you going to say the difference was that god didn't (jokingly, it would seem) command Jephtah to murder his child with the intent of not having him go through with it? If so, so what?

[JamesG]

I am sorry you cant toss out the story of Jephthah as "not looked upon kindly". It doesn't matter how you look upon it the more important thing to consider is how God looks upon it. God is all knowing correct? if we both agree there then when Jephthah made that promise to the lord, God knew what he was going to get as a sacrifice and  he could have simply not accepted it. In fact Jephthah exhibited more selflessness than Abraham and he did not get to keep his daughter. Not to mention his daughter had a chance to flee the sacrifice and she exhibited even more selflessness to return. The fact that  god did not step in with an angel as established with Abraham is that a. God wanted a human sacrifice b. God is obviously not all knowing c.God is cruel d. God does not value women the same as man I wonder how different this story would be if his son stepped through the door or e. there is no god.

 

I am sorry but this is human sacrifice pure and simple you cant dance around it I just don't see how you can.

 

Also lets just assume for a second that the Cannanites performed human sacrifice is that just cause to wipe out an entire group of people after all were they ALL guilty. Secondly the fact that God ordered the Israelites to commit genocide the Israelites are performing human sacrifice to YWH anyways. If god didn't like human sacrifice could he not just have smote them into a pillar of salt? without forcing his followers to commit atrocities. or is it like this  genocide is ok it was just the Cannanites anyways we don't really care about them.

 

There is no historical evidence to support the claim that the Cannanite religions supported human sacrifice they just don't.

[Astreja]

I'd like to add (f):  Different gods within the Israelites' pantheon, with different perspectives on sacrifice.  That's what you get when you cobble together stories from several different traditions and multiple generations, and arbitrarily declare it to be monotheism:  An inconsistent and often contradictory deity made up of bits and pieces of earlier gods.

[Guest nat]

 

Jephtah's action is not looked upon kindly at all.

Well, certainly not by us.

 

So why did Abraham get angelic intervention, but not Jephtah?

 

And what's with this vicious-minded god that wants these sacrifices in the first place?  Be it a dove getting its neck wrung in the temple, or a kid getting trussed up on a mountaintop, it's a stupid thing for a legitimate god to desire.

 

It is not fair in the one against many nature of this forum that I should have to defend every claim.

 

It sounds like you didn't think it through very well when you signed up, then.  What were you expecting would happen -- Mass conversion to your way of thinking?  Equal standing for ideas coming from a book that most of us here have rejected?

 

You don't understand moral relativism.

 

(Springy G reaches for the Clue-By-Four™)  *BONK* 10-minute misconduct for attempted mindreading.

 

I did not come here to discuss the bible. It came about by the side (based on an answer i gave to someone's challenge) , and once mentioned it is as if I need to defend every claim. This whole thread was supposed to be about the infinite source and i said many times that this God is not the same thing as the god of the bible.

 

Abraham got intervention because his deed was good even if not perfect in the ultimate sense. Jephthah's act was bad. God does not intervene with Bad. Wake up. Look at this world.

 

We relate to child sacrifice as disgusting because we are in our framework. We don't give a bulls ---- that he claims or thinks God told him to do it. That is as it should be because we must relate to things in our framework. But if you are reading the bible, and the bible says God told him to do it, you are now in his framework, get it? If you don't get it, then don't ask me more about it.

 

There are various attitudes to sacrifice. Most sacrifices in fact had their meat eaten.

 

In any case, sacrifice does not represent the ultimate good, but the ultimate worthlessness of this world. We try to honor God with our bounty and in the most exacting sense, God rejects this honor. See psalms 50. That is why we have a bad sense of it now, because it never represented the ultimate good. The ultimate good is gratitude for everything God bestows upon you whether good or suffering. Talk to people who survive very bad things and many will tell you how much they gained from it. The ultimate good of God's salvation is only glorious grace because we do good and yet suffer. The main point of life is to be good and have gratitude for the good and the bad of life, so that we can have glory in a gift we don't deserve. Our actions are actually worthless, and we even end up suffering by not doing evil things, and that is why we can have glory in a gift of eternal life that we don't deserve. That is why Psalms 50 explains the real honor of God comes not with sacrifice but with thanksgiving, and that we call upon God in the day of distress, he delivers us and we honor him. It is all about thanksgiving, suffering, and ultimate delivery. Try reading it again now.

[JamesG]

Just clarify for me what deed of Abraham was good and what deed of Jephthah was bad? In both cases they do what the lord asks of them in one case the lord steps in and the other case he doesn't what did jephtah do that was different?

 

Yes I get that this was about infinity but I think we can all agree that the horse is dead and it has been beaten enough perhaps time to start a new thread?

[Guest nat]

Listen,

 

There is a particular god process in this world and every time it gets put into action, a very distinct part of it is the destruction of evil. Too bad if you can't handle it. Yes, the evil prosper for quite a while, but at the right time, bam, they get destroyed. 

[midniterider]

 

 

 

 

 

So you would be willing to entertain the thought that Jewish texts are baloney?

 

 

The neat thing about Jewish texts is that they say anything you want them to say even if they don't mention it.  The Torah doesn't mention Lady Gaga or her music but the Torah says that Lady Gaga is the best singer in history.  Hey don't blame me if you don't like her music.  That is simply what it says in the Torah as clear as day.

 

Is the constitution any different. Why has the supreme court been split on the big issues?

 

Do you live in America?

 

 

Good point. We try to apply a 200 year old Constituion document to the current times. Neither the Torah nor the Constitution is equipped to handle something like stem cell research but someone will yank some vague phrase from one of these documents to try to bully someone with it. Millions of laws which are more up-to-date have replaced the Constitution and the Bible. These old documents are nice guidelines for life but some of their contents are dated and useless.

 

When it is clear that an old document was inspired and beyond its times, we then adapt it to our current times. This unfortunately leads to abuses, but each side does its best to promote its understanding. If we tried to make a document now to portray the core of our values, it would just fall on its a--. Does anyone think that anyone now can come up with an inspired description of our values? And who would agree to it? 

 

 

We can only adapt certain parts of ancient documents to our current times.  I'm not sure we need a document to portray our core values (mission statement?)  but we do have local, state and federal laws that attempt to legislate morality. But there are always people who will break those laws just like people who will ignore religious texts so no, there will be no across-the-board agreement on anything. People have never agreed on anything. Not in Moses time nor our own time.

[Astreja]

Abraham got intervention because his deed was good even if not perfect in the ultimate sense. Jephthah's act was bad.

 

Obeying a command to tie up and sacrifice your son is a good deed?

 

Heeheeheeheehee!  Good one, Nat.  Next thing you'll be telling us something like:

 

 

Our actions are actually worthless...

 

Maybe to your sick little mind, Nat, but not to Mine.  If society values good actions, then they have a considerable amount of value.

 

And I have had it up to *here* with believers of various stripes making the same feeble excuses for their evil gods.  I think it's time for some real consequences here, in the real world.  For starters, I think that you, Nat, should be passed over for any positions in which you might be in a fiduciary relationship to vulnerable people.  If you're incapable of saying "All human sacrifice is wrong, and the account of Abraham and Isaac simply isn't up to our moral standards," I wouldn't trust you to clean My cats' litter boxes.

 

Listen,

 

There is a particular god process in this world and every time it gets put into action, a very distinct part of it is the destruction of evil. Too bad if you can't handle it. Yes, the evil prosper for quite a while, but at the right time, bam, they get destroyed. 

 

Bullshit.  Humans destroy evil by confronting it.  Your imaginary friend sits on its equally imaginary rear-end and does nothing at all.