Mathematical Proof Of God

[midniterider]

 

I think people should be able to tell by now that I am not some simplistic bible thumper. These are well though out ideas. 

 

 

I was thinking more like "deluded old testament thumper that's bad at math."

[moloko5]

 

 

 

I think your starting to see my point.

 

 

I saw it in the OP. My primary objection, like others here, is to the claim it is a mathematical proof. It is, in my opinion (and apparently many of the others here,) an analogy at best that might be useful in helping those who believe have a frame of reference to what "God" is like.

 

I would suspect that a very large number of people easily come to that analogy at an early point in their belief, it is fairly obvious to anyone who has a rudimentary exposure to algebra. But once one has been exposed to higher level of mathematics it can be seen as only an analogy given how infinity is used mainly when dealing with limits (which is ironic.)

 

If you take issue with my mathematical proof to God, I clearly backed away from that at the start. The mathematical and logical proofs revolve only around the ideas of infinity and its affects. One can choose to apply those concepts to God, or Quantum, or God Quantum, each to his preference.

 

 

But what does attaching the word "god" to any of those concepts add?  Does saying "God Quantum" add anything to the concept of quantum.  Does equating "god" with the mathematical concept of infinity add anything to the understanding of infinity?

[Guest nat]

 

 

I think people should be able to tell by now that I am not some simplistic bible thumper. These are well though out ideas. 

 

 

I was thinking more like "deluded old testament thumper that's bad at math."

 

I challenge you to debate any math thing I said. Are you up to it?

[florduh]

BTW, thanks for the replies.

 

I hope this site will change this authentic christian thing, which i am not. 

 

Perhaps someone will change it, but it seems fine to me since you espouse an unfounded belief in the Christian god (of course while not recognizing the validity of the Christian view) and claiming special revelation and offering absurd "proofs" that the god of the Bible exists and speaks best through Jewish tradition. Meh. Like our political parties; two heads of the same counterfeit coin.

 

Many may welcome the Jewish perspective simply because it rejects Christianity. I see both religions as closely related and sharing a shady past. Both rely on false history and revealed wisdom from a supernatural entity. Neither offers any proof but is eager to claim the other view is still somehow wrong. I'm not inclined to give a free pass, sorry.

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

 

I think your starting to see my point.

 

 

I saw it in the OP. My primary objection, like others here, is to the claim it is a mathematical proof. It is, in my opinion (and apparently many of the others here,) an analogy at best that might be useful in helping those who believe have a frame of reference to what "God" is like.

 

I would suspect that a very large number of people easily come to that analogy at an early point in their belief, it is fairly obvious to anyone who has a rudimentary exposure to algebra. But once one has been exposed to higher level of mathematics it can be seen as only an analogy given how infinity is used mainly when dealing with limits (which is ironic.)

 

If you take issue with my mathematical proof to God, I clearly backed away from that at the start. The mathematical and logical proofs revolve only around the ideas of infinity and its affects. One can choose to apply those concepts to God, or Quantum, or God Quantum, each to his preference.

 

 

But what does attaching the word "god" to any of those concepts add?  Does saying "God Quantum" add anything to the concept of quantum.  Does equating "god" with the mathematical concept of infinity add anything to the understanding of infinity?

 

Calling it God, is a way of entering into the debate to say that it has consciousness and that it manifested into a more finite version which instructed us what to do. What you actually call it makes very little difference in regard to itself. And by the way, I was not entering into that God aspect here, which some people can't seem to understand.

[Guest nat]

 

BTW, thanks for the replies.

 

I hope this site will change this authentic christian thing, which i am not. 

 

Perhaps someone will change it, but it seems fine to me since you espouse an unfounded belief in the Christian god (of course while not recognizing the validity of the Christian view) and claiming special revelation and offering absurd "proofs" that the god of the Bible exists and speaks best through Jewish tradition. Meh. Like our political parties; two heads of the same counterfeit coin.

 

Many may welcome the Jewish perspective simply because it rejects Christianity. I see both religions as closely related and sharing a shady past. Both rely on false history and revealed wisdom from a supernatural entity. Neither offers any proof but is eager to claim the other view is still somehow wrong. I'm not inclined to give a free pass, sorry.

 

You are completely wrong. I never said anything about proving God of the bible. 

Can you admit you are wrong?

Can you admit that you think I say what you want to think I say?

Who is close-minded here?

[midniterider]

 

To keep the challenge simple, here are my points

 

1. infinity is the first infinite and unknowable non material un-divisable source.

2. infinity's affect on zero (nothing) brings about all things.

3. infinity and zero are opposites

4. all numbers/infinity=0, all numbers/0=infinity, infinity *0= all numbers

 

I am up to any challenge. Name your point. 

Let me say however, that I am not the ultimate source of knowledge and I don't know everything. If you claim to disprove me with things that are way above my head, I will say that I don't know. The challenge is to be simple and yet prove your point. I can show very simple logic/math for any point above.

 

To keep the challenge simple:

 

1. You may not disagree with Nat.

2. Yay, he wins!!!

[Guest nat]

"God" is whatever you want to define it as for whatever situation you are dealing with.  That is why it's a completely useless word in addition to being a nonsensical concept.

No, God is not.

The true original force is what ever it is.

The lower forms of God, which ever you believe in, instructs you to be moral. Its not whatever.

[Guest nat]

Whether classic Jewish philosophy is true or not, it is still a valid form of philosophy. That was my argument at the time I said it.

[florduh]

 

You are completely wrong. I never said anything about proving God of the bible. 

Can you admit you are wrong?

Can you admit that you think I say what you want to think I say?

Who is close-minded here?

 

 

 

Okay, nat. Your god is listed as Jewish and you're interested in Judaism and Talmud.

 

So what god are you talking about if not Yahweh? If you want to change gears and leave Judaism and its baggage out of supernatural discussions, fine - but you'll have to let me know what you're now talking about.

[Guest nat]

 

To keep the challenge simple, here are my points

 

1. infinity is the first infinite and unknowable non material un-divisable source.

2. infinity's affect on zero (nothing) brings about all things.

3. infinity and zero are opposites

4. all numbers/infinity=0, all numbers/0=infinity, infinity *0= all numbers

 

I am up to any challenge. Name your point. 

Let me say however, that I am not the ultimate source of knowledge and I don't know everything. If you claim to disprove me with things that are way above my head, I will say that I don't know. The challenge is to be simple and yet prove your point. I can show very simple logic/math for any point above.

 

To keep the challenge simple:

 

1. You may not disagree with Nat.

2. Yay, he wins!!!

 

You can disagree, and I can disagree. But no one disproved me yet.

[Guest nat]

 

 

You are completely wrong. I never said anything about proving God of the bible. 

Can you admit you are wrong?

Can you admit that you think I say what you want to think I say?

Who is close-minded here?

 

 

 

Okay, nat. Your god is listed as Jewish and you're interested in Judaism and Talmud.

 

So what god are you talking about if not Yahweh? If you want to change gears and leave Judaism and its baggage out of supernatural discussions, fine - but you'll have to let me know what you're now talking about.

 

I think if you are honest you will admit that you lost this argument. Just because I personally believe something, does that mean that I am talking about every aspect that I believe? In this specific post I was discussing God in the generic, and from the start I clearly made this even more generic by focusing on the infinite source rather than God. But you say I came to talk about God of the bible.

Right on.

Keep at it.

[bornagainathiest]

I've just deleted a long, long message that was going to be my very last attempt to reach out to Nat and to politely and respectfully ask him to put aside his challenges and his certainty and to ask himself the simple, humbling question, 'Could I be wrong?'

 

But the confrontational, I'm-right-and-you're-wrong tone of his last messages tells me that politeness and respect are wasted on him. 

 

Therefore, being impolite and disrespectful, I will speak my mind about him.

 

S.S.D.A.

[florduh]

But you say I came to talk about God of the bible.

 

 

 

Are you a Jew or not? Do you have other gods?

[Guest nat]

 

But you say I came to talk about God of the bible.

 

 

 

Are you a Jew or not? Do you have other gods?

 

Just admit already.

There are layers.

In this post I was discussing the very first layer which was completely generic. I was not discussing the other layers here.

[midniterider]

 

 

 

I think people should be able to tell by now that I am not some simplistic bible thumper. These are well though out ideas. 

 

 

I was thinking more like "deluded old testament thumper that's bad at math."

 

I challenge you to debate any math thing I said. Are you up to it?

 

 

Your math has been disproven by Bhim and Ouroboros, imo. I believe I've also chimed in that dividing by zero is illogical and multiplying anything by zero still equals zero. If 100 mathematicians showed up at your door to show you where your theory was wrong you would insist that all 100 of them were incorrect. You just refuse to accept dissenting opinion because you enjoy your mathematical theory and won't give it up. That's completely ok. :-)

 

After both parties in a debate get done presenting their case, their rebuttals and rebuttals to rebuttals, eventually both parties walk away telling themselves, "I really kicked his ass.."  lol. It's like the grade school fight. Nobody ever tells their friend, "Wow, I lost that fight." :-)

 

I might agree with you that there may be a god or that all existence may be god or that the universe might be self aware, eternal, infinite even. But coming up with mathematical proofs using illogical math equations to prove god is absurd. Why do we need to prove god, anyway? Once he's proven, then.....I need to go to your church? Or what?

[Guest nat]

I've just deleted a long, long message that was going to be my very last attempt to reach out to Nat and to politely and respectfully ask him to put aside his challenges and his certainty and to ask himself the simple, humbling question, 'Could I be wrong?'

 

But the confrontational, I'm-right-and-you're-wrong tone of his last messages tells me that politeness and respect are wasted on him. 

 

Therefore, being impolite and disrespectful, I will speak my mind about him.

 

S.S.D.A.

I have no anger towards you. Think of the deluge I have to go through. You were one of the nice ones. I have no animosity to you. You were nice. The problem was exactly your long long messages. Very hard to respond to. I tried.

My main point to you was that the quantum or infinite principals are connected with the first source, and that we did not start with nothing. 

I can live with any truth. If its true than that is what it is. But knowing what is that truth is tricky.

[florduh]

 

 

But you say I came to talk about God of the bible.

 

 

 

Are you a Jew or not? Do you have other gods?

 

Just admit already.

There are layers.

In this post I was discussing the very first layer which was completely generic. I was not discussing the other layers here.

 

So you don't believe in the god of the Jews.

 

Your ever changing definitions of "god" and mathematical absurdities are making me tired! 

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

 

I think people should be able to tell by now that I am not some simplistic bible thumper. These are well though out ideas. 

 

 

I was thinking more like "deluded old testament thumper that's bad at math."

 

I challenge you to debate any math thing I said. Are you up to it?

 

 

Your math has been disproven by Bhim and Ouroboros, imo. I believe I've also chimed in that dividing by zero is illogical and multiplying anything by zero still equals zero. If 100 mathematicians showed up at your door to show you where your theory was wrong you would insist that all 100 of them were incorrect. You just refuse to accept dissenting opinion because you enjoy your mathematical theory and won't give it up. That's completely ok. :-)

 

After both parties in a debate get done presenting their case, their rebuttals and rebuttals to rebuttals, eventually both parties walk away telling themselves, "I really kicked his ass.."  lol. It's like the grade school fight. Nobody ever tells their friend, "Wow, I lost that fight." :-)

 

I might agree with you that there may be a god or that all existence may be god or that the universe might be self aware, eternal, infinite even. But coming up with mathematical proofs using illogical math equations to prove god is absurd. Why do we need to prove god, anyway? Once he's proven, then.....I need to go to your church? Or what?

 

I don't think anyone disproved the math.

Division by zero is very logical. I am not the first to say that it is infinity.

According to calculus, you look at the limit. What happens as the denominator tends towards 0. You got it. It is infinity.

Many mathematicians say that any number divide by infinity is 0.

SO just like 6/3=2 and 6/2=3, any number/infinity=0 and any number/0 = infinity.

And just like 2*3=6, 0 times infinity can equal any number.

You can't escape the logic and simplicity.

In any case, the math had to do with the effects of infinity and zero, and how matter came about, but not about infinity itself which I discussed separately.

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

But you say I came to talk about God of the bible.

 

 

 

Are you a Jew or not? Do you have other gods?

 

Just admit already.

There are layers.

In this post I was discussing the very first layer which was completely generic. I was not discussing the other layers here.

 

So you don't believe in the god of the Jews.

 

Your ever changing definitions of "god" and mathematical absurdities are making me tired! 

 

I never saw someone more closed minded. I do believe in the God of the Jews, but I was discussing the first ultimate source at which point it makes no difference what the secondary layers are. The God of the bible is a more limited manifestation of the first source. I was NOT discussing the God of the bible.

[florduh]

The God of the bible is a more limited manifestation of the first source.

 

 

 

Not according to the Bible, Jewish literature, or any aspect of your claimed religion. If one says he's a Christian I assume he believes in Christ, since that's what the term means. Still, there have been some who claim Christianity but don't believe in Christ. Now we have a self professed Jew who doesn't believe in the god of the Jews as the one and only god who is above all. Heretic.

 

And don't expect anyone to disprove your absurd "proof" of a god (who is, apparently, not the Hebrew god). It can't be done since it is an article of your faith. Don't expect anyone to accept your "reasoning" as positive proof, either.

 

If you must believe in a god, Jewish or otherwise, then just do so. Don't, however, think you can prove your unfounded belief to others with dodgy math or claims of "unmentionable" personal revelation. 

[Guest nat]

 

The God of the bible is a more limited manifestation of the first source.

 

 

 

Not according to the Bible, Jewish literature, or any aspect of your claimed religion. If one says he's a Christian I assume he believes in Christ, since that's what the term means. Still, there have been some who claim Christianity but don't believe in Christ. Now we have a self professed Jew who doesn't believe in the god of the Jews as the one and only god who is above all. Heretic.

 

And don't expect anyone to disprove your absurd "proof" of a god (who is, apparently, not the Hebrew god). It can't be done since it is an article of your faith. Don't expect anyone to accept your "reasoning" as positive proof, either.

 

If you must believe in a god, Jewish or otherwise, then just do so. Don't, however, think you can prove your unfounded belief to others with dodgy math or claims of "unmentionable" personal revelation. 

 

Did you study kabalah?

It says there that ein sof is not elohim or the four letter God.

You obviously know nothing of this. 

[Guest nat]

 

The God of the bible is a more limited manifestation of the first source.

 

 

 

Not according to the Bible, Jewish literature, or any aspect of your claimed religion. If one says he's a Christian I assume he believes in Christ, since that's what the term means. Still, there have been some who claim Christianity but don't believe in Christ. Now we have a self professed Jew who doesn't believe in the god of the Jews as the one and only god who is above all. Heretic.

 

And don't expect anyone to disprove your absurd "proof" of a god (who is, apparently, not the Hebrew god). It can't be done since it is an article of your faith. Don't expect anyone to accept your "reasoning" as positive proof, either.

 

If you must believe in a god, Jewish or otherwise, then just do so. Don't, however, think you can prove your unfounded belief to others with dodgy math or claims of "unmentionable" personal revelation. 

 

Excuse me.

The personal revelation was in a completely different post and you took it completely out of context. And you say I used it here.

You are either crazy or closed minded beyond belief. 

[florduh]

 

 

You are either crazy or closed minded beyond belief. 

 

 

 

 

For your purposes, we can just say that I'm both. Enjoy your stay.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

Division by zero is very logical. I am not the first to say that it is infinity.

According to calculus, you look at the limit. What happens as the denominator tends towards 0. You got it. It is infinity.

Many mathematicians say that any number divide by infinity is 0.

SO just like 6/3=2 and 6/2=3, any number/infinity=0 and any number/0 = infinity.

And just like 2*3=6, 0 times infinity can equal any number.

You can't escape the logic and simplicity.

In any case, the math had to do with the effects of infinity and zero, and how matter came about, but not about infinity itself which I discussed separately.

 

Hello Nat, you have stimulated a lot of discussion with two threads - more than I usually accomplish!  

 

Perhaps in a different thread you would like to share more about the Kabbalah and how it can enhance our understanding of life and the world.

 

In this thread you offered a proof of God.  A proof normally is presented in an argument.  So far, much of what you have done is present a series of assertions rather than an argument, that is, a system of reasoning in which the conclusion follows from premises that are either true or likely to be true, and the connections between premises and the conclusion is made explicit.  If the authorities who have inspired you are mainly interested in putting a framework on spiritual experience, and your aim is to symbolize your experience, that's cool.  But you are instead attempting to argue to a conclusion.  I'd like to offer some broad suggestions.

 

1. be careful not to fall into equivocation fallacies.  That's when you use a term under one meaning in one part of your argument and under another meaning in another part of your argument, so that your conclusion uses meaning #2 but your premises only authorized you to draw conclusions about meaning #1.  It seems to me that you equivocate on "infinity" and "the infinite," using these terms under different meanings, or to refer to different objects at different stages in your argument.

 

2. be careful not to beg the question. That's when your premises already imply the conclusion to which you aim to argue.  

 

3.  be careful of "ignoratio elenchi."  That's a kind of fallacy where you discuss something under one subject but draw conclusions about another one.  I think you do this when you slide from discussing math, which is a tautological system in which the subject matter need not have real existence (i.e. need not be mind-independent), to making conclusions about entities (God) that are mind-independent and are claimed to have real existence.  so far you're only authorized to draw conclusions about mathematical objects.

 

4. be rigorous about clarifying terms.  Vagueness (ex:  "the infinite") can cover faulty reasoning.