Mathematical Proof Of God

[midniterider]

 

Bhim,

 

How can you say infinity times 0 is still 0. It is not 0. It is indeterminate. I never said infinity is a number. It is not. It can't be understood, nor can its affects. 

 

If infinity isnt a number then why are you using it as a factor in a multiplication problem? If infinity cannot be understood then why are we talking about it?

[midniterider]

 

I have tried to keep the mathematical proofs away from the God application.

 

 

What's the title of this thread?

[midniterider]

Plain and simple. What was the first cause? Big bang? Alternate universes? Who cares what is was. What was before that? And before that? No one can ever know it. It is infinite and unknowable. God is the same way (note: that is an application).

 

 

Infinity goes on forever. God goes on forever. They must be one and the same thing then.

 

Apples are a tasty food.  Similarly, New York steak is a tasty food. Apples and steaks therefore are the same thing.

[midniterider]

 

I can and have defended the math and the logic. It's just when people bring up very high level of math, I cant argue on that level. 

 

 

So if someone has a higher understanding of math they must automatically be wrong? Someone with higher knowledge must be ignored to keep your pet theory alive.

 

If you go to get your car fixed and you "know" the problem is the carburetor you tell the mechanic to fix the carburetor. The  mechanic says this car does not have a carburetor, it has fuel injection. If you don't know what fuel injection is do you:

 

[A] Say, "All cars have carburetors! I'm not backing down from this. This is simple Auto Mechanics 101. I took that class in high school back in '65. I dont have a higher understanding of automobiles to discuss this 'fuel injection' thing. Dont bother me with semantics. Just fix the carburetor.

 

or

 

Ask, "What is this fuel injection? Tell me more and what we need to do to fix it."

[raoul]

So Jews play the same kind of word-games that Christians love so much? Good to know.

Well RankStranger, a cult by any other name is still a cult, right?

[raoul]

 

 

I have tried to keep the mathematical proofs away from the God application.

 

 

What's the title of this thread?

 

I'm going to change the title to 'Orthodox Jews are as fucked up as Orthodox Xtians'. How's that sound? LOL (note to board moderator - I'm not attacking anyone personally. Merely talking in generalities okay? )

[Guest nat]

 

We will have to disagree. I have a different view of how to deal with something like infinity which is does not conform to normal things. I also disagree on indeterminate. It is not 0. To keep it simple  6/3=2 2*3=6. 1/0=infinity (or infinitely large) infinity*0=1, 2/0=infinity infinity*0=2, and so on. Real simple. Since it can be anything it is indeterminate.

 

The great thing about math is that it can be provable.  We don't need to agree to disagree, rather one of us can be proven right.  For example, you made a clear flaw in the above statement.  You said that since 2/0=infinity, therefore 2=0*infinity.  That's not a correct statement.  To do this operation, you have to multiply both sides of the equation by 0.  When you do that, you'd get 2*0 = 0*infinity, which reduces to 0=0*infinity (since 2 times 0 equals 0).  If you replace the 2 with any other number, you get the same result.  Even if I agree with the false assumption that infinity is a number, I am still correct.  You're ignoring a lot of mathematical formalism here, which is why you are ultimately arriving at wrong answers.

 

Bhim,

You are losing me here.

2/0=infinity so 2*0 = 0 * infinity

what???

6/3=2 so 6*3 = 3*2

Sorry, not in this word.

[Guest nat]

 

We will have to disagree on many points.

Matter of any kind can't be eternal, because it is dividable. Infinity can't be divided. The original prime cause must be not material. Infinity a well defined concept? Please! You can package it nicely, and work with it, but understand it? Sorry. Keep going back and back and back till when? No one can grasp the infinite eternal. 

Infinity *0 is indeterminate. It can be anything. I never said it was undefined. I said that about infinity.

 

Who said matter is eternal?  The origin of the first matter is still debatable, but there are models available to describe the genesis of the first subatomic particles of the universe (google baryogenesis and leptogenesis if you want to read about this).

 

Is infinity a well-defined concept?  Yes!  Again, you're trying to make a simple concept into something profound.  To say that some variable is infinite means that you are taking a limit, and letting that variable increase without bound.  Infinity is a concept invented by people, and thus people can define it clearly.

 

I noticed you changed your terminology.  Now you say that infinity times zero is "indeterminate."  Indeterminate doesn't mean "anything."  I encourage you to pick up a calculus textbook and look for either "indeterminate forms" or "L'Hospital's Rule" in the index.  That section will clearly describe how you can get finite numbers from indeterminate forms.  I guarantee you, these indeterminte forms aren't arbitrary!  They can't be anything, like you suggest.

 

I didn't say undetermined is anything. I said it can be anything.

Very simple here.

6/3=2 , 2*3=6

1/0=infinity, infinity*0=1

2/0=infinity, infinity*0=2

3/0=infinity, infinity*0=3

Infinity*0 can be anything.

Some more

4/infinity=0, 0*infinity=4

5/infinity=0, 0*infinity=5

6/infinity=0, 0*infinity=6

0*infinity can be anything

OK?

[Guest nat]

Lots of anger comming out now. 

If someone smarter than me says something above me that I don't understand, I do not say he is wrong. I say I don't know.

That does not stop me from proving something on the simple level especially when the higher level stuff is coming across as being evasive and purposely trying to confuse.

I used very simple math to prove my point.

all numbers / infinity=0

all numbers / 0 = infinity

infinity * 0 = all numbers.

 

Whenever the first matter was here, what was before that?

Where did it come from?

How did it get here?

 

Very simple answer.

 

Something was always here.

 

What?

Something infinite was here infinitely.

It was not matter because matter can be divided and infinity cannot

Something beyond all reason, because infinity is beyond reason

 

Infinity * 0 = any number

infinities affect on zero brought about all things.

 

Much of these teachings are in a classic Jewish book called duties of the heart (not all the math though).

[Ravenstar]

You didn't understand my post.. there is no 'before'.

 

Because there was no time.. it's a nonsensical idea.

 

I don't care who says it... christians, jews, muslims, hindus... aliens.. it doesn't matter. It's NOT anger you are seeing, it's a love of reason and logic... on this site we are passionate about reason. We demand it... because we have been fed (and accepted) fantasy and cognitive distortions and apologetics for too long. It's YEARS of investigation to come to the conclusion that biblegod does not exist, and frequently we have paid a very dear price for following our reason and conscience, for following our truth. Now we challenge these things, and rightly so.

 

I don't think anyone here cares where it comes from.. if it's an untenable idea with no support..then it's untenable... doesn't have to be christian to be wrong.. and this idea is wrong... on many levels.

 

But this is what we do here.. don't take it personally.. we tear apart crappy ideas. It helps us to bolster our newfound foray and habitation in reality, It helps us to learn to trust our own ability to reason and apply logic.

 

and yes.. sometimes we mock and blaspheme, especially when the 'g' word is used. You must understand.. for us the 'g' word is dirty... and to accept any kind of proof of this thing existing it had better be iron-clad and rock-solid... because that has NOT been our experience,

 

Which is why we are EX-Christians.. and in the majority of cases - atheists of some sort.

 

heathens

 

infidels

 

apostates

 

We have been convinced, usually under our own reasoning abilities and deep study and investigation and long dark nights of the soul... that 'god' and especially Yahweh... is a fiction, and a harmful one at that.

 

Just want to explain some of the reactions... and they are more than justified... on the other hand a lot of people here would be very impressed if there actually WAS real proof for god. But it ain't going to be an easy sell...

[Guest nat]

Ravenstar,

 

You can't say that there was nothing before, because then how can something come from nothing? 

0*all things is 0 

The only thing powerful enough to combat the power of zero is the power of infinity. 

The two are completely opposite forces.

When you divide by infinity what do you get? You get its opposite. You get 0.

0 and infinity are both beyond reason. We cannot comprehend something without end. we also can't comprehend complete nothingness. 

Don't negate either one. 

There is the eternal everness of existence.

And there is nothing.

Between the two is everything.

Profound?

It is completely mathematical.

infinity *0 can be anything.

[Bhim]

Bhim,

You are losing me here.

2/0=infinity so 2*0 = 0 * infinity

what???

6/3=2 so 6*3 = 3*2

Sorry, not in this word.

Ah, sorry, honest mathematical mistake there. What I should have said is that if we're going to treat infinity as a number, then 2/0 = infinity would be rearranged to 2*0/0 = 0*infinity, which would be further simplified to 0/0 = 0*infinity. It's those last two steps that are important. People usually manipulate equations by moving things from one side to another. A denominator on the left hand side can become a numerator on the right hand side, a positive term on the right side can become a negative term on the left side, and so forth. But strictly speaking that's not correct. In algebraic manipulation you need to do the same thing to both sides of the equation. If you take 2/0=infinity, you can't "move zero to the other side." You need to multiply both sides by 0. But then the left hand side is (2*0)/0. And surely you'll agree that 2*0=0. So you don't get 0*infinity=1. See the problem? Even if I treat infinity like a number and allow for division by zero, your claim that "infinity*0 can be anything" is still wrong.

 

And I would be remiss if I didn't say that all of the above math is wrong anyway. Division by zero simply isn't a valid mathematical operation.

[Bhim]

Lots of anger comming out now.

Just speaking for myself here, but I'm not angry at all. If you were a Christian uttering such nonesense I might be rather displeased, since I would not appreciate the combination of anti-intellectualism and belief that I am going to hell for failing to believe in something ridiculous. In my opinion, your being a Jew mitigates things a good deal. I know that you don't regard me as hell-bound and hold no belief that I must agree with you to avoid eternal condemnation. And as I said, my experiences with Jews and religious discourse have been almost exclusively positive. So I regard this exchange as little more than an exercise in correcting an incorrect mathematical opinion on your part.

 

If someone smarter than me says something above me that I don't understand, I do not say he is wrong. I say I don't know.

That does not stop me from proving something on the simple level especially when the higher level stuff is coming across as being evasive and purposely trying to confuse.

I used very simple math to prove my point.

I think Midniterider's illustration about the auto mechanic is apt here. This isn't about intelligence, it's about qualification. By your own admission you don't have any experience with advanced math. When people who do have such experience tell you that what you're saying is wrong, would the spirit of intellectual humility not dictate that you should consider the possibility that you are indeed wrong before you plow ahead with your argument?

 

Having said all that, as I've already told you: YOU have the necessary qualifications to see what's wrong with your own math. It doesn't take someone with a math degree (which I happen to have, for whatever that's worth) to understand why you can't divide by zero. This is stuff you learn in high school algebra and calculus. Unless you were a jock back in high school, you can pick up a textbook and read about why your mathematical operations don't make sense. But to put it succinctly, let me paste your math below and point out the exact line that's wrong:

 

all numbers / infinity=0

all numbers / 0 = infinity

infinity * 0 = all numbers. -> You can't move zero to the other side of the equation. When you multiply the two sides by zero, all numbers*0 becomes just 0. So you get infinity*0=0/0.

 

Whenever the first matter was here, what was before that?

Where did it come from?

How did it get here?

 

Very simple answer.

 

Something was always here.

Scientists are regularly working on not so simple answers to these questions. Don't you owe it to yourself to read what we're working on instead of just discarding the work and the millions of taxpayer dollars you pay us to do it?

[Guest nat]

 

Bhim,

You are losing me here.

2/0=infinity so 2*0 = 0 * infinity

what???

6/3=2 so 6*3 = 3*2

Sorry, not in this word.

Ah, sorry, honest mathematical mistake there. What I should have said is that if we're going to treat infinity as a number, then 2/0 = infinity would be rearranged to 2*0/0 = 0*infinity, which would be further simplified to 0/0 = 0*infinity. It's those last two steps that are important. People usually manipulate equations by moving things from one side to another. A denominator on the left hand side can become a numerator on the right hand side, a positive term on the right side can become a negative term on the left side, and so forth. But strictly speaking that's not correct. In algebraic manipulation you need to do the same thing to both sides of the equation. If you take 2/0=infinity, you can't "move zero to the other side." You need to multiply both sides by 0. But then the left hand side is (2*0)/0. And surely you'll agree that 2*0=0. So you don't get 0*infinity=1. See the problem? Even if I treat infinity like a number and allow for division by zero, your claim that "infinity*0 can be anything" is still wrong.

 

And I would be remiss if I didn't say that all of the above math is wrong anyway. Division by zero simply isn't a valid mathematical operation.

 

Bihm,

You can do the same thing to both sides.

 

2/0= infinity

 

0*2/0= 0*infinity

2/0 is infinity so 0 * infinity = 0 * infinity

OR

The 0's cancel out and 2= 0 * infinity, which is true because 0*infinity can equal anything as I have proven before.

 

Bihm, the math is completely solid.

 

Calculus teaches that you know what something is by the way it is going. What is happening as the denominator goes to 0. It is reaching infinity, so anything divided by 0 = infinity.

 

anything divided by infinity = 0.

6/3=2 and 6/3=2

6/infinity=0 and 6/0=infinty

Very simple rock solid math.

[Guest nat]

Quoting Bhim

2*0/0 = 0*infinity, which would be further simplified to 0/0 = 0*infinity.

 

0/0 is indeterminate. 0*infinity is also indeterminate. Both can equal anything so this also works.

[BrotherJosh]

You can't say that there was nothing before, because then how can something come from nothing? 

 

 

[midniterider]

This thread is starting to remind me of this:

 

[miekko]

So Jews play the same kind of word-games that Christians love so much? Good to know.

I am not sure it's a word-game in nat's case. Bear with me for a moment. Let us compare and contrast the God-concepts of Judaism and Christianity first.

 

Christianity in most of its forms has a trinity consisting of three persons - the father, the son and the spirit. The exact relation between the son and Jesus differs between early schisms in Christianity and I bet  you can find some variation in modern schisms as well. It seems some of the protestant movements don't really have much of an attempt at having a coherent theology on this, even. It does force the christians to impose some kind of structure on God, and the idea of a man being in this trinity as well makes the christian God a pretty complex affair, necessarily even having corporeal features.

 

Judaism, on the other hand, tends to a kind of minimalism in its concept of God - see, e.g. the kabbalistic notion of ein sof, "without end", which essentially is a formless void. That formless void is God. Meanwhile, opposing the medieval kabbalists were a group who usually are called 'rationalists', foremost among whom was Maimonides, who also taught a very reduced and featureless God-concept, where you should not say God had any properties, because God is unfathomable.

 

This analogy may skate a bit onto what Nat would consider thin ice, but consider multiplication by one. If we multiply some number x by one, we obtain x. (Or if we add zero to x, we obtain x). No one doubts this is what happens. Now, multiplying reality (represented as a matrix of numbers) by one, we obtain reality. (If we multiplied it by two, we would obtain a different universe, as would we if we added some numbers here or there.) For some Jews, it'd seem the belief in God is not much different from believing that if you multiply a number by 1, you obtain the same number - the idea of God is so abstract and  

 

If the God you believe in basically just is a cosmic algebraic one, arguments like those of nat's kind of make sense - altho' the God one would believe in in those cases is fairly different from what one'd expect having heard Christians speak of God. I suspect arguments like these have evolved like this:

 

- originally, they were not arguments for god's existence, they were explanations as to what someone believes about God, metaphors explaining rather abstract concepts of God, and trying to get other believers to leave behind naive concepts like 'a bearded man on a cloud' (although I don't believe that notion to have been very common at the time this phrasing came about. Consider it a placeholder for any anthropomorphic god-concept, or otherwise physical or mentally human-like concept)

 

- people who had been taught similar abstract beliefs using different metaphors, after a time, had heard these ideas thrown about maybe even a bit carelessly, and no longer realized these metaphors were metaphors made in order to convey such beliefs - they already held the belief, after all. Rather, they understood them as arguments in favor of their belief.

 

- later on, people with *different beliefs* heard these and figured they sounded profound and impressive, and started using them to argue for concepts of God that the metaphor from the very onset was made in order to contradict. That's where you get evangelicals and pentecostals with very anthropomorphic views quoting the exact same thing even though it doesn't support their belief in a heavenly Jesus sitting next to his father's throne. 

[raoul]

 

Lots of anger comming out now. 

I've been waiting for that - it's no different than when a christian cultist can't respond to logical challenges by us, throws up her/his hands, and says you people are really angry. Why?

 

And my simple response to them as well as you is - we're ALL recovering addicts (from religion). You are just another drug dealer coming along and trying to sell us something to get us hooked again.

[bornagainathiest]

Nat,

 

You'll get no anger from me, nor have you had any. 

Perhaps you meant that there's a lot of anger coming out of you?  I hope not.  But if that's so, please understand that I did try and warn you about this yesterday afternoon, in message # 95.  It's a very difficult thing for someone to have their deeply held beliefs challenged - not just by those who disagree but also by a clear-cut body of evidence.

 

However, you've written some things (in the 'A Jew's Take on Jesus...' thread) that I very much agree with and I hope that you'll find it within yourself to put them into practice now, when you read the rest of my post.   "For the record, I am far from certain, as I am skeptical and agnostic by nature.  It takes a great deal of effort for me to be a believer, and I don't do it easily or delusionally.  In the end though, I am not completely certain, but it is what I believe."  Yesterday, in response to Florduh's comment about finding God under a rock, you wrote...  "And if you think he is not under any rock, you won't find him.  Self fulfillment can go both ways.  The only way is to be humble and open to the truth, whatever it is."  Nat, if you are skeptical and agnostic by nature and if you are humble and open to the truth - whatever it is, will you please read this carefully and give it a fair hearing?  Thanks.

 

Bhaya's first premise, "Nothing creates itself, since the act of creating neccesitates it's existence"  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chovot_HaLevavot ) is based on what scientists call the Classical concept of cause and effect.  We see this happening all around us, every day and it's what we're familiar with.  An effect always follows it's cause and never precedes it, right?  Our experience tells us that time never reverses itself, but always runs from the past, thru the present and on into the future.  Well, that's always been the understanding, but it's not the full story. 

 

What Bahya or anyone else before him couldn't have known is we've discovered about Quantum physics in the last 100 years or so.  The Uncertainty principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) describes how it's impossible for us to simultaneously know the position and momentum of ultra-small, sub-atomic particles .  This uncertainty also refers, not just to their physical position in space but also their location in... time.  We cannot say exactly when these little critters exist but can only come up with a range of probable locations - where and when they might be, in space and in time.

 

So far, so good?

Now, since the where and when of a given particle cannot be precisely known, this means that the rigid rules of Classical cause-and-effect can't be applied to it with 100% certainty.  It could exist now or it could exist after now or it could exist before now.  The particle isn't tied to our expectations and it can do things that we don't expect.  For instance, we might expect that it needs something before it, something else... to bring it into existence.  That is, something (a cause) brings it (the effect) into being.  However, the particle isn't obliged to do that because it's not rigidly tied to our fixed understanding of past, present and future. Because the particle's past, present and future aren't fixed, it's entirely possible for it's future to come before it's past, in the reverse of our expectations and in contradiction to the 'usual' rules of cause-and-effect.  So a particle (the effect) can be it's own cause - by existing before itself.  It is self-created, relying on nothing to precede it.

 

Gobbledegook?  Nonsense?  Irrationality?

It sounds like it, I'll agree... but there's iron-clad scientific evidence and proof of this Nat, as I'll now show you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

It's not necessary to understand the equations and the science behind all of this.  Instead, please scroll down to the section, 'Manifestations' where you'll see a list of real-world 13 effects brought about by virtual particles.  This one... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect ...states something very pertinent to our discussion.  The Casimir effect can be measured by placing two uncharged metal plates in a vacuum chamber and positioning them just a few micrometers apart.  "In a Classical description [involving strict cause-and-effect] , the lack of an external field [of energy] also means that there is no field between the plates, and no force would be measured between them."  However, a net force is measured between the plates - the virtual particles making their presence felt in this way.

 

So, Classical philosophy and science cannot explain something which has been independently observed and detected.  But Quantum physics can.   Therefore, the Classical methods of understanding reality have to be dropped in favor of a new way of seeing things... otherwise one is obliged to deny and reject the evidence of our own eyes.

 

Nat, here is another quantum phenomena that defies our Classical ideas of cause-and-effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

"Quantum tunnelling refers to the quantum mechancial phenomenon where a particle tunnels thru a barrier that it classically could not surmount."  Please note that by factoring quantum tunnelling into their equations, scientists are able to explain how and why radioactive decay, the spontaneous mutation of DNA and the cold emission of electrons all take place.  Also, there are several applications of quantum tunnelling in computer technology - so they are what enables you to read these words right now. 

 

However, perhaps the most surprising point about quantum tunnelling is that without it thermonuclear fusion wouldn't be possible in the cores of every star in the sky.  This includes our Sun.  So, life on Earth wouldn't be possible without the ability of quantum-sized nuclear particles to behave in ways that freely and openly contradict Classical physics.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/images/screen/heic0612d.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/M51_Hubble_Remix.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Heart_of_M13_Hercules_Globular_Cluster.jpg

None of these stars would be shining unless these quantum effects were real and true.

 

Ok Nat, if you are as you say, skeptical and agnostic by nature and if you are indeed humble and open to the truth, please ask yourself this question.

 

Are you open to the idea that cause-and-effect doesn't always apply, everywhere and at all times?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[RankStranger]

 

So Jews play the same kind of word-games that Christians love so much? Good to know.

 

I am not sure it's a word-game in nat's case. Bear with me for a moment. Let us compare and contrast the God-concepts of Judaism and Christianity first.

 

Christianity in most of its forms has a trinity consisting of three persons - the father, the son and the spirit. The exact relation between the son and Jesus differs between early schisms in Christianity and I bet  you can find some variation in modern schisms as well. It seems some of the protestant movements don't really have much of an attempt at having a coherent theology on this, even. It does force the christians to impose some kind of structure on God, and the idea of a man being in this trinity as well makes the christian God a pretty complex affair, necessarily even having corporeal features.

 

Judaism, on the other hand, tends to a kind of minimalism in its concept of God - see, e.g. the kabbalistic notion of ein sof, "without end", which essentially is a formless void. That formless void is God. Meanwhile, opposing the medieval kabbalists were a group who usually are called 'rationalists', foremost among whom was Maimonides, who also taught a very reduced and featureless God-concept, where you should not say God had any properties, because God is unfathomable.

 

This analogy may skate a bit onto what Nat would consider thin ice, but consider multiplication by one. If we multiply some number x by one, we obtain x. (Or if we add zero to x, we obtain x). No one doubts this is what happens. Now, multiplying reality (represented as a matrix of numbers) by one, we obtain reality. (If we multiplied it by two, we would obtain a different universe, as would we if we added some numbers here or there.) For some Jews, it'd seem the belief in God is not much different from believing that if you multiply a number by 1, you obtain the same number - the idea of God is so abstract and  

 

If the God you believe in basically just is a cosmic algebraic one, arguments like those of nat's kind of make sense - altho' the God one would believe in in those cases is fairly different from what one'd expect having heard Christians speak of God. I suspect arguments like these have evolved like this:

 

- originally, they were not arguments for god's existence, they were explanations as to what someone believes about God, metaphors explaining rather abstract concepts of God, and trying to get other believers to leave behind naive concepts like 'a bearded man on a cloud' (although I don't believe that notion to have been very common at the time this phrasing came about. Consider it a placeholder for any anthropomorphic god-concept, or otherwise physical or mentally human-like concept)

 

- people who had been taught similar abstract beliefs using different metaphors, after a time, had heard these ideas thrown about maybe even a bit carelessly, and no longer realized these metaphors were metaphors made in order to convey such beliefs - they already held the belief, after all. Rather, they understood them as arguments in favor of their belief.

 

- later on, people with *different beliefs* heard these and figured they sounded profound and impressive, and started using them to argue for concepts of God that the metaphor from the very onset was made in order to contradict. That's where you get evangelicals and pentecostals with very anthropomorphic views quoting the exact same thing even though it doesn't support their belief in a heavenly Jesus sitting next to his father's throne.

Meaningless word-games backed by tradition are still meaningless word-games.

[Ouroboros]

Note:

 

The site is calling me an authentic christian believer. I am not!!!

I am a proud Jew!!!

 

Infinity and zero  are opposites, but both are transcendental opposite forces, the eternal versus the void. Mathematically, infinity and zero have unusual qualities. Unlike standard numbers, zero times or divided by any number is still zero, and infinity times or divided by any number is still infinity.

What happens when you divide by zero? The closer the denominator gets to zero, the bigger the result. Division by 0 seems to produce infinity. Conventional mathematics says that division by zero is undefined. Infinity, likewise, cannot be defined, so undefined and equals infinity may actually be the same thing. There is more of a consensus, though, that any number divided by infinity equals zero. Since 6/3=2 and 6/2=3, it is logical that any number/infinity=0 and any number/0=infinity.

There is an exception to the 0*x=0 and infinity*x=infinity rule. Since any number/infinity=0, and any number/0=infinity, it follows that infinity*0=any number. And since any number*0=0 and any number*infinity=infinity, it follows that 0/0 and infinity/infinity=any number. Conventional mathematics indeed considers these to be undetermined, meaning that it could be anything.

What does all this mean? God is the infinite. The opposite of God is nothing. Judaism teaches that God made this world from nothing. God*0=all things.

 

And that is the mathematical proof to God.

Thank you.

Non sequitor. It does not follow.

 

A mathematically cool thing doesn't show the existence of something with supposed similar properties.

 

1 (one) is also a cool number and has a lot of interesting properties. Therefore, there is 1 Chinese teapot circling Mars as we speak.

[Ouroboros]

Sorry, NULL is not 0, it is undefined, or undetermined, in the context I present. One has only to look at how many databases treat the terms "0", "" and NULL to see that.

 

It is true that in many cases one can consider NULL (or undefined) to be the logical equivalent of "FALSE" but not always. I'd have to refresh my memory on it, but I also believe that set theory makes a distinction between "0" and NULL.

Also, there have been discussions about having different kinds of NULL. I think they differences relate to the causes of why the field is null, not that it actually is null. Anyway, since 1 (world) came from nothing (NULL), God must be NULL. Agree.

[Ouroboros]

Ok, we will never understand infinity or God, and if Null is undefined, we will never understand that as well. Undefined means that we cannot define or understand it. It should be humbling that math proves to us that we cannot understand something.

It doesn't prove God though. To prove something, you have to construct a set of properties of what your proving first. If God is undefined, proving something to be undefined doesn't prove God. Undefined isn't a property, it's the absence of it.

[Ravenstar]

Thanks guys, you explain it so much better than I do