Mathematical Proof Of God

[raoul]

Well thanks, Nat!

 

Thanks for taking the time to concisely answer the one question I put to you about cause and effect in my last post.

Thanks for taking the time to concisely answer the three questions I put to you yesterday about evidence you could accept.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my other post to you yesterday, the one about Chaotic Inflation theory matching the observed data.

 

Thanks for noticing that I'd taken the time to cite bona fide evidence of where classical cause-and-effect breaks down.

Thanks for noticing that I'd taken the time to list the technologies that use this break down of cause-and-effect to function.

Thanks for noticing that I'd taken the time to cite and outline the accepted, mainline explanation of Infinity, a la Cantor.

 

Thanks for appreciating my efforts to engage you in a tolerant and respectful manner.

Thanks for being skeptical and agnostic by nature and also humble and open to the truth.

Thanks for living up to those very words you wrote about yourself and for giving me a fair hearing.

 

Your unswerving certainty (when you should be skeptical), your mockery of me (when you should be humble) and your refusal to accept evidence (when you should be open to the truth) all go to tell me that further dialog with you is pointless. 

 

You are not skeptical by nature, but dogmatic.

You are not humble, but combative.

You are not open to the the evidence, but closed-minded.

 

This doesn't make me angry with you Nat... only very sad. 

 

Goodbye,

 

BAA.

Well BAA, as I think I've said before, you are a much BETTER person than I. I simply have NO time for them - any of them. I debate them over on YouTube sites and it always ends badly. I've taken incredible time explaining things only to have them do what this Nat character did with you. If I didn't know it I would think he's a bible thumping xtian. Good job though - I went through what you were saying and will look it over again, possibly even copy and paste some of it to a file I have. Thanks!

[SquareOne]

 

I already said that I can't debate this on the advanced level. I will leave that for others. But I still do think my logic is sound.

 

 

Bear witness to the core of the theistic mindset.

[Guest nat]

 

 

I already said that I can't debate this on the advanced level. I will leave that for others. But I still do think my logic is sound.

 

 

Bear witness to the core of the theistic mindset.

 

Don't be so haughty. However smart you are, there will be someone who knows more about something than you. Does that mean that he is right about everything? Everyone has their limit. There is no way to know everything. So we have to discuss things within our limit. If you go into super high einstein math, no I will not be able to converse with you. That is why I used basic math only.

[Guest nat]

 

Well thanks, Nat!

 

Thanks for taking the time to concisely answer the one question I put to you about cause and effect in my last post.

Thanks for taking the time to concisely answer the three questions I put to you yesterday about evidence you could accept.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my other post to you yesterday, the one about Chaotic Inflation theory matching the observed data.

 

Thanks for noticing that I'd taken the time to cite bona fide evidence of where classical cause-and-effect breaks down.

Thanks for noticing that I'd taken the time to list the technologies that use this break down of cause-and-effect to function.

Thanks for noticing that I'd taken the time to cite and outline the accepted, mainline explanation of Infinity, a la Cantor.

 

Thanks for appreciating my efforts to engage you in a tolerant and respectful manner.

Thanks for being skeptical and agnostic by nature and also humble and open to the truth.

Thanks for living up to those very words you wrote about yourself and for giving me a fair hearing.

 

Your unswerving certainty (when you should be skeptical), your mockery of me (when you should be humble) and your refusal to accept evidence (when you should be open to the truth) all go to tell me that further dialog with you is pointless. 

 

You are not skeptical by nature, but dogmatic.

You are not humble, but combative.

You are not open to the the evidence, but closed-minded.

 

This doesn't make me angry with you Nat... only very sad. 

 

Goodbye,

 

BAA.

Well BAA, as I think I've said before, you are a much BETTER person than I. I simply have NO time for them - any of them. I debate them over on YouTube sites and it always ends badly. I've taken incredible time explaining things only to have them do what this Nat character did with you. If I didn't know it I would think he's a bible thumping xtian. Good job though - I went through what you were saying and will look it over again, possibly even copy and paste some of it to a file I have. Thanks!

 

I have no malice towards BAA. I was mocking Hawkins not BAA. Some nice people here like BAA, boftx, ficino, bihm, sorry if I missed someone. But there sure are a lot of close minded and hateful people here too.

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

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.

 

Many good points. But it is very hard to be fully exact.

There is proof of an eternal infinite source, because there is the eternal infinite before us. We don't know what it is so we can't define it. If I seem to somewhat go back and fourth in describing the infinite, well that is because it can not be understood or properly described. But something infinite is the source. The math part is proven within itself, and I used it as a platform to explain how matter got here from nothing as a result of the infinite source. I clearly said that the original post was not worded according to the precise standards demanded here. But hello? that was my first post and I did not know the standards here.

[boftx]

BAA,

 

This is a side issue, but might become connected. We know that E=mc2 applies to what we now call visible matter and energy. Is there any similar relation between dark matter and dark energy, or has such been proposed? Has anyone suggested there might be some kind of conversion between visible matter/energy and dark matter and/or dark energy?

[midniterider]

 

 

Well thanks, Nat!

 

Thanks for taking the time to concisely answer the one question I put to you about cause and effect in my last post.

Thanks for taking the time to concisely answer the three questions I put to you yesterday about evidence you could accept.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my other post to you yesterday, the one about Chaotic Inflation theory matching the observed data.

 

Thanks for noticing that I'd taken the time to cite bona fide evidence of where classical cause-and-effect breaks down.

Thanks for noticing that I'd taken the time to list the technologies that use this break down of cause-and-effect to function.

Thanks for noticing that I'd taken the time to cite and outline the accepted, mainline explanation of Infinity, a la Cantor.

 

Thanks for appreciating my efforts to engage you in a tolerant and respectful manner.

Thanks for being skeptical and agnostic by nature and also humble and open to the truth.

Thanks for living up to those very words you wrote about yourself and for giving me a fair hearing.

 

Your unswerving certainty (when you should be skeptical), your mockery of me (when you should be humble) and your refusal to accept evidence (when you should be open to the truth) all go to tell me that further dialog with you is pointless. 

 

You are not skeptical by nature, but dogmatic.

You are not humble, but combative.

You are not open to the the evidence, but closed-minded.

 

This doesn't make me angry with you Nat... only very sad. 

 

Goodbye,

 

BAA.

Well BAA, as I think I've said before, you are a much BETTER person than I. I simply have NO time for them - any of them. I debate them over on YouTube sites and it always ends badly. I've taken incredible time explaining things only to have them do what this Nat character did with you. If I didn't know it I would think he's a bible thumping xtian. Good job though - I went through what you were saying and will look it over again, possibly even copy and paste some of it to a file I have. Thanks!

 

I have no malice towards BAA. I was mocking Hawkins not BAA. Some nice people here like BAA, boftx, ficino, bihm, sorry if I missed someone. But there sure are a lot of close minded and hateful people here too.

 

 

 

Are people close minded? Or just analytical? You don't believe in Jesus. You must be close minded. :-)

[Ravenstar]

I think squareone and Raoul hit the nail on the head. The modus operandi is far too familiar.

 

Ouroboros... interesting. I'll have to think on that some more.

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

Well thanks, Nat!

 

Thanks for taking the time to concisely answer the one question I put to you about cause and effect in my last post.

Thanks for taking the time to concisely answer the three questions I put to you yesterday about evidence you could accept.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my other post to you yesterday, the one about Chaotic Inflation theory matching the observed data.

 

Thanks for noticing that I'd taken the time to cite bona fide evidence of where classical cause-and-effect breaks down.

Thanks for noticing that I'd taken the time to list the technologies that use this break down of cause-and-effect to function.

Thanks for noticing that I'd taken the time to cite and outline the accepted, mainline explanation of Infinity, a la Cantor.

 

Thanks for appreciating my efforts to engage you in a tolerant and respectful manner.

Thanks for being skeptical and agnostic by nature and also humble and open to the truth.

Thanks for living up to those very words you wrote about yourself and for giving me a fair hearing.

 

Your unswerving certainty (when you should be skeptical), your mockery of me (when you should be humble) and your refusal to accept evidence (when you should be open to the truth) all go to tell me that further dialog with you is pointless. 

 

You are not skeptical by nature, but dogmatic.

You are not humble, but combative.

You are not open to the the evidence, but closed-minded.

 

This doesn't make me angry with you Nat... only very sad. 

 

Goodbye,

 

BAA.

Well BAA, as I think I've said before, you are a much BETTER person than I. I simply have NO time for them - any of them. I debate them over on YouTube sites and it always ends badly. I've taken incredible time explaining things only to have them do what this Nat character did with you. If I didn't know it I would think he's a bible thumping xtian. Good job though - I went through what you were saying and will look it over again, possibly even copy and paste some of it to a file I have. Thanks!

 

I have no malice towards BAA. I was mocking Hawkins not BAA. Some nice people here like BAA, boftx, ficino, bihm, sorry if I missed someone. But there sure are a lot of close minded and hateful people here too.

 

 

 

Are people close minded? Or just analytical? You don't believe in Jesus. You must be close minded. :-)

 

Completely wrong analogy. I refer to close minded when people say you said something just so that it is easier for them to argue with it. Or when some people just name call without making a valid argument. 

And its quite a known thing that both the believers and non believers have their good share of believing what they want to believe.

[Bhim]

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.

Sorry, that's simply not correct. The function f(x)=1/x is an example of a function that has different right and left handed limits (the limit from the right is +infinity, and from the left is -infinity).

 

 

 

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

If that is so, then you need only to cite a paper or two by PhD mathematicians which state this and I'll concede the point. Can you?

 

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.

 

Sorry Nat, but there's no logic to be discussed here. Most mathematical proofs are NOT simple. Professional mathematicians spend four or five years in graduate school to learn how to formulate proofs. Don't you think you're being a tad arrogant to think that you can write amateurish proofs (to say nothing of the fact that your proofs are flat out wrong) and expect us to believe them? Mind you, I agree with you on the existence of God, I find great value in your religion, and even I'm saying this. I can only imagine what a low opinion the atheists on this forum have of your arguments.

 

 

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.

What you just wrote makes no sense. Multiplication and division are equal in the order of operations (remember PEMDAS from grade school math?). If you divide the two by the zero first, you get 0*infinity. If you multiply 0*2 first you get 0/0. The very concept makes about as much sense as a spherical triangle.  And I can tell you that 0/0 definitely does not "cancel out."  In what you wrote above, you even admit that there are two potential answers you can get.  Ask yourself: how can a mathematical equation be simplified to two mutually exclusive expressions?

 

The math is definitely not solid.  In what you wrote above in just a few lines, you contradicted yourself.

 

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.

You can know what something is by the way it's going?  I'm not even sure what that means.  And I've already explained to you why you can't divide something by zero and get infinity.  I even provided a counterexample by way of the left hand limit of the function I defined above.  But you haven't responded to my argument (which I put forth earlier), only repeated your own claim.  If I missed the post where you addressed this, please direct me to it or restate your case at least.

Look, Nat, you've got to have some intellectual humility here and admit when you're wrong.  There's no shame in that.  Like I said I'm not a professional mathematician, but I'm not a mathematical idiot either.  I've had four years of undergrad training in math.  And I'm talking actual math major math, not just the stuff I had to learn in my physics classes.  I know all about the various sets of numbers, how sequences and series work, and how mathematicians write formal proofs.  By your own admission you don't have much training in mathematics.  Forget what we're telling you.  Can you really convince yourself that you are correct, and that everything I'm telling you is BS?

 

I'm not even asking you to take what I say on faith.  As I've implored you on multiple occasions, pick up a calculus textbook and read the section concerning indeterminate forms and L'Hospital's Rule.  I recommend the textbook by James Stewart.  It's one of the most widely used undergraduate texts, and you may still have a copy lying around from your college days.  I don't know how to put this differently, but your math is so incorrect that "wrong" is not an adequate descriptor.

 

Beyond simply eschewing mathematical falsehood, there are further reasons you should reconsider your claims.  Like I said before, since leaving Christianity I've enjoyed most of my religious conversations with Jews.  One of the things I admire most about Judaism is that Jews do not engage in mental gymnastics in order to justify their faithful practice of religion.  That is, a Jew doesn't need to believe in the historicity of the Hebrew Bible in order to practice the rules that it requires.  My dissertation advisor is a Jew, and we have pretty regular conversations on religion (well, "regular" if you ignore that most of the time we're working on the latest problems in astrophysical research).  She basically doesn't believe in God and certainly doesn't believe that the Hebrew Bible is historically accurate, because archeologists tell us that many of its claims are not supported by physical evidence.  She still keeps all the dietary regulations, does Passover, and doesn't show up at work on the high holy days.  And she's by no means unique in this regard; I know quite a few Jews who are equally faithful in spite of acknowledging the ahistoricity of much of their religion's claims.  This is the sort of faith I likewise seek in my practice of Hinduism: one that is robust against the religious claims that are sure to be debunked by scientists.

 

And then we've got your approach.  You are talking nonsense about math.  Now I do have a fairly advanced mathematical education, but quite a few others here can see the inaccuracies in your line of reasoning because you're trying to rewrite the rules of high school math.  And I think many here are asking themselves: if you show such intellectual sloppiness in your mathematical arguments, then how seriously do you take your study of Judaism?  Most Jews I know take a fairly academic approach to their religion.  But I admit, the way you approach math casts doubt on my view of how you treat Judaism.  If you're clinging to patently false historical claims made by the Bible the way you cling to false mathematical claims, you're really missing out on some of the great and profound things taught in the Hebrew Bible (things, I would add, that are subverted by the New Testament and which you really ought to be fighting to preserve).  So again I implore you: don't talk nonsense and espouse academically poor arguments.  This seems to be contradictory to the academic spirit of your religion.

 

BAA,

 

This is a side issue, but might become connected. We know that E=mc2 applies to what we now call visible matter and energy. Is there any similar relation between dark matter and dark energy, or has such been proposed? Has anyone suggested there might be some kind of conversion between visible matter/energy and dark matter and/or dark energy?

If I may offer a short public service announcement here, there's not much of a relation between dark matter and dark energy. Dark energy isn't a well understood concept, we only label it as the cause of the universe's accelerated expansion. Dark matter, on the other hand, is matter just like any other except that it is non-luminous. I suppose "like any other" may be a stretch, because some theories suggest that dark matter consists of a weakly interacting massive particle called the neutralino, as opposed to being comprised of protons and electrons like other matter. But you get the idea.

[Ouroboros]

A finite thing has finite definitions. If there is no last number it is infinite. The finite and infinite can be inter-related but they are not the same. When you focus on a finite derivative of what is infinite, then it is no longer infinite. The infinite must come first because it goes beyond anything finite.

What about the infinite sets of infinite sets?

 

There is an infinite number of sets.

 

There is an infinite number of infinite sets.

 

The infinite set of infinite sets is part of itself, and therefore, based on your logic, it creates itself.

 

Besides, even if any of the poppycock was right (which is isn't), it doesn't lead to evidence of God. The setup only works as an analogy of God's nature, nothing else (if there was a God).

[Guest nat]

 

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.

Sorry, that's simply not correct. The function f(x)=1/x is an example of a function that has different right and left handed limits (the limit from the right is +infinity, and from the left is -infinity).

 

 

 

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

If that is so, then you need only to cite a paper or two by PhD mathematicians which state this and I'll concede the point. Can you?

 

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.

 

Sorry Nat, but there's no logic to be discussed here. Most mathematical proofs are NOT simple. Professional mathematicians spend four or five years in graduate school to learn how to formulate proofs. Don't you think you're being a tad arrogant to think that you can write amateurish proofs (to say nothing of the fact that your proofs are flat out wrong) and expect us to believe them? Mind you, I agree with you on the existence of God, I find great value in your religion, and even I'm saying this. I can only imagine what a low opinion the atheists on this forum have of your arguments.

 

 

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.

What you just wrote makes no sense. Multiplication and division are equal in the order of operations (remember PEMDAS from grade school math?). If you divide the two by the zero first, you get 0*infinity. If you multiply 0*2 first you get 0/0. The very concept makes about as much sense as a spherical triangle.  And I can tell you that 0/0 definitely does not "cancel out."  In what you wrote above, you even admit that there are two potential answers you can get.  Ask yourself: how can a mathematical equation be simplified to two mutually exclusive expressions?

 

The math is definitely not solid.  In what you wrote above in just a few lines, you contradicted yourself.

 

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.

You can know what something is by the way it's going?  I'm not even sure what that means.  And I've already explained to you why you can't divide something by zero and get infinity.  I even provided a counterexample by way of the left hand limit of the function I defined above.  But you haven't responded to my argument (which I put forth earlier), only repeated your own claim.  If I missed the post where you addressed this, please direct me to it or restate your case at least.

Look, Nat, you've got to have some intellectual humility here and admit when you're wrong.  There's no shame in that.  Like I said I'm not a professional mathematician, but I'm not a mathematical idiot either.  I've had four years of undergrad training in math.  And I'm talking actual math major math, not just the stuff I had to learn in my physics classes.  I know all about the various sets of numbers, how sequences and series work, and how mathematicians write formal proofs.  By your own admission you don't have much training in mathematics.  Forget what we're telling you.  Can you really convince yourself that you are correct, and that everything I'm telling you is BS?

 

I'm not even asking you to take what I say on faith.  As I've implored you on multiple occasions, pick up a calculus textbook and read the section concerning indeterminate forms and L'Hospital's Rule.  I recommend the textbook by James Stewart.  It's one of the most widely used undergraduate texts, and you may still have a copy lying around from your college days.  I don't know how to put this differently, but your math is so incorrect that "wrong" is not an adequate descriptor.

 

Beyond simply eschewing mathematical falsehood, there are further reasons you should reconsider your claims.  Like I said before, since leaving Christianity I've enjoyed most of my religious conversations with Jews.  One of the things I admire most about Judaism is that Jews do not engage in mental gymnastics in order to justify their faithful practice of religion.  That is, a Jew doesn't need to believe in the historicity of the Hebrew Bible in order to practice the rules that it requires.  My dissertation advisor is a Jew, and we have pretty regular conversations on religion (well, "regular" if you ignore that most of the time we're working on the latest problems in astrophysical research).  She basically doesn't believe in God and certainly doesn't believe that the Hebrew Bible is historically accurate, because archeologists tell us that many of its claims are not supported by physical evidence.  She still keeps all the dietary regulations, does Passover, and doesn't show up at work on the high holy days.  And she's by no means unique in this regard; I know quite a few Jews who are equally faithful in spite of acknowledging the ahistoricity of much of their religion's claims.  This is the sort of faith I likewise seek in my practice of Hinduism: one that is robust against the religious claims that are sure to be debunked by scientists.

 

And then we've got your approach.  You are talking nonsense about math.  Now I do have a fairly advanced mathematical education, but quite a few others here can see the inaccuracies in your line of reasoning because you're trying to rewrite the rules of high school math.  And I think many here are asking themselves: if you show such intellectual sloppiness in your mathematical arguments, then how seriously do you take your study of Judaism?  Most Jews I know take a fairly academic approach to their religion.  But I admit, the way you approach math casts doubt on my view of how you treat Judaism.  If you're clinging to patently false historical claims made by the Bible the way you cling to false mathematical claims, you're really missing out on some of the great and profound things taught in the Hebrew Bible (things, I would add, that are subverted by the New Testament and which you really ought to be fighting to preserve).  So again I implore you: don't talk nonsense and espouse academically poor arguments.  This seems to be contradictory to the academic spirit of your religion.

 

BAA,

 

This is a side issue, but might become connected. We know that E=mc2 applies to what we now call visible matter and energy. Is there any similar relation between dark matter and dark energy, or has such been proposed? Has anyone suggested there might be some kind of conversion between visible matter/energy and dark matter and/or dark energy?

If I may offer a short public service announcement here, there's not much of a relation between dark matter and dark energy. Dark energy isn't a well understood concept, we only label it as the cause of the universe's accelerated expansion. Dark matter, on the other hand, is matter just like any other except that it is non-luminous. I suppose "like any other" may be a stretch, because some theories suggest that dark matter consists of a weakly interacting massive particle called the neutralino, as opposed to being comprised of protons and electrons like other matter. But you get the idea.

 

Bhim,

 

I may have gotten a head of myself concerning the math as accepted. Most commonly, it is not accepted that division by 0 is the actual infinity. Your point of negative and positive is one reason. Others say because infinity is not a number. Yet, there is no full fledged proof. There are still many places that you will see it said that /0=infinity or something very close to it, including limits etc. The negative and positive issue is not a complete disproof either. Just because someone says that its no good is not proof. Even einstein made up laws to fit his need (think cosmological constant). Since 0 is neither positive or negative it makes good sense that it approaches both infinities. It can be either one or perhaps both. 

When i researched a while back, I remember x/infinity =0 was more conventional. I may be wrong.

 

I said 2 times and divided by 0 might cancel out the 0. I am not completely sure on this point, but either way I think I was correct on this issue. You said 0/0 does not = 0*infinity, and I say it does. In this case, I believe even conventional mathematics is on my side, because both 0/0 and 0*infinity are indeterminate forms.

 

In any case, bhim, even if x/0 is not infinity, from a logical standpoint and even an accepted one, it is something similar to infinity and it can also be worded in a slightly different way where you can use infinity even conventionally. Moreover, since infinity is beyond our grasp and reason, it makes complete sense that things related to it are undefined. Saying things like you can't divide by 0 just avoids the main point, without thinking about what is really involved. I was getting into the inner abstract of the issue, even if I was not following the exact line. Humans have this capacity to into a deeper truth through applied logic. If you really think through the analogy, you will find a deeper truth in it even if the math is not completely perfect.

I am a bit stubborn and still think that greater truths lie behind these matters. And in time I hope mathematicians will break out of their easy way out of just saying you can't divide by zero. In that case, i will have been ahead of my time, and I won't be the only one. By the deeper truth is there regardless.

[Ouroboros]

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.

Which sign? You get positive and negative infinite unless you define from which side (sign) you're coming. So is it -∞ you mean or +∞?

 

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.

Except 0/0, which is both positive and negative infinite, zero, and 1, at the same time, i.e. undefined galore.

 

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.

0 times infinite depends on the functions and if you can rewrite it as a 0/0 or ∞/∞ ratio in your limit. In such case, you can use L'Hospital's rule, and it might converge to a number.

[Guest nat]

Bhim,

 

I will continue some. What is the square root of 25. Does anyone say 5? Well you are wrong. The answer is +-5. It can be either one. x/0 may also be +-infinty and this would not be wrong. (Ouroborus, 0/0 is not undefined. it is undetermined. And when I said any number /0 is infinity, I was not including 0/0.)

 

I also said from the start that i did not word my original post with precise exactitude, and it was more of a platform for how the infinite can bring matter into existence, and not so much a discussion of the infinite itself, which i discussed more afterward. In any case, the math as i worded it is not the most commonly accepted form. Still, if I worded it carefully, I could say just about the same thing. The fact is that infinity *0 is not 0. It is undetermined by every account. As such the platform remains that the infinite source can do undetermined things out of nothing. Why did you need to get caught up in the exact math? Maybe I am right and ahead of my time. Maybe I am not exactly right but nonetheless close enough to reveal a greater truth. It does not matter. The platform remains the same since infinity times 0 is not 0. I said this long ago that this alone is compelling.

 

Moreover, there is proof to an eternal infinite source without the math. The fact is that the past goes back infinitely, so we already know that there was something infinite. What was there all along? It cannot be anything finite, because finite is not infinite. It can't be nothing because you can't get something from complete nothing. There had to be an infinite original source. And since it is infinite, it is unknown and beyond reason. and the infinite can do unusual things. Why evade these truths by picking a fight on this or that when it does nothing to the actual argument?

 

In the end I think we all reached a kind of an agreement on this original infinte source. Whether you call it God or something else will remain a debate. In Kabalah it is call ain sof, without end, meaning infinite. Kabalah also says that we can not fathom it at all. It is plainly true that no one can fathom the infinite. In kabalah this infinite source is above that called God in the bible, which is not completely infinite. There should be no anger or argument here. These are great truths.

[midniterider]

 It can't be nothing because you can't get something from complete nothing. There had to be an infinite original source.

 

What created this 'infinite original source' ?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

BAA,

 

This is a side issue, but might become connected. We know that E=mc2 applies to what we now call visible matter and energy. Is there any similar relation between dark matter and dark energy, or has such been proposed? Has anyone suggested there might be some kind of conversion between visible matter/energy and dark matter and/or dark energy?

If I may offer a short public service announcement here, there's not much of a relation between dark matter and dark energy. Dark energy isn't a well understood concept, we only label it as the cause of the universe's accelerated expansion. Dark matter, on the other hand, is matter just like any other except that it is non-luminous. I suppose "like any other" may be a stretch, because some theories suggest that dark matter consists of a weakly interacting massive particle called the neutralino, as opposed to being comprised of protons and electrons like other matter. But you get the idea.

 

 

Botfx,

 

I happily defer to the expert in these matters. 

 

Bhim does this stuff for a living and has been trained in it.  I do it for fun, in my spare time.

 

Thanks for asking tho'

 

Cheers,

 

BAA.

[Guest nat]

 

 It can't be nothing because you can't get something from complete nothing. There had to be an infinite original source.

 

What created this 'infinite original source' ?

 

Infinity means that it was always there. No, we don't and can't understand how something could always be there, the same way we can't understand how infinity just goes on and on. But something was always there. So it did not need to be created because by definition it is infinite.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I had thought that what Nat said about kabbalistic thought sounded rather like neo-Platonism, and in fact, the Wikipedia article on "ein sof" draws that parallel explicitly:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Sof

 

I notice that in this article, one thinker described the infinite that, I think, Nat is talking about as not existing, ie. beyond being.  This is just like the neo-Platonic notion of The One that is beyond being, so it's called "not existing" - on the thinking that if The One is one, only one thing can be said of it, i.e. "one."  If you say two things of it, i.e. "one" and "being," it's no longer the pure One.  So the neo-Platonists spoke of the "not-existing One" beyond all being and the "existing One."  - thus giving themselves two Ones.  

 

Does Kabbalah do that, too?

 

BTW matter, on the other hand, both in Aristotle and in neo-Platonism, is pure receptivity.  It's what receives form.  

 

Someone on here recently (I forget who) spoke of Christianity as more "pagan" than Jewish.  Much research has also been done into the connections between "pagan" thought and late ancient and medieval Jewish philosophy.  I'm not an expert on it.

[raoul]

Once more - completely and totally wrong! Your presuppositional arguments or mindset or IDENTICAL to what we've encountered here and elsewhere with rabid bible thumping xtians! You argue a false equivalency here. To wit:

1. First, regarding my premise of your presuppositional mindset - you say 'it's quite a known thing'. Oh really? How so? Have you compiled oodles of data to support that absurd claim? Now I would be the first to say that both sides have people who fit under that umbrella HOWEVER I would humbly submit that on your side the percentages are probably around 90% or better based on EMPIRICAL observations, YEARS of debating with them, THOUSANDS of comments from atheists saying the SAME thing regarding their closed minds. Yes, we may have a few of that mindset as well but I would posit (and this is merely a premise) that our side has less than 10% of this classification. And, once more I cite my case on the same reasons (in caps) I've posited regarding your side.

2. It has also been my experience based on the SAME big cap words used before that an atheist will painstakingly write out in detail his/her argument only to have a theist, displaying incredible intellectual laziness and even dishonesty, pooh pooh the argument away if he/she even bothers studying it in the first place which most of you do not since you wear what I call 'god' glasses. Everything is seen through that prism. And if you object to this need I remind you of BAA's initial rebuttal to your absurd mathematical gobbley gook?

 

Completely wrong analogy. I refer to close minded when people say you said something just so that it is easier for them to argue with it. Or when some people just name call without making a valid argument. 

And its quite a known thing that both the believers and non believers have their good share of believing what they want to believe.

 

[Guest nat]

I had thought that what Nat said about kabbalistic thought sounded rather like neo-Platonism, and in fact, the Wikipedia article on "ein sof" draws that parallel explicitly:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Sof

 

I notice that in this article, one thinker described the infinite that, I think, Nat is talking about as not existing, ie. beyond being.  This is just like the neo-Platonic notion of The One that is beyond being, so it's called "not existing" - on the thinking that if The One is one, only one thing can be said of it, i.e. "one."  If you say two things of it, i.e. "one" and "being," it's no longer the pure One.  So the neo-Platonists spoke of the "not-existing One" beyond all being and the "existing One."  - thus giving themselves two Ones.  

 

Does Kabbalah do that, too?

 

BTW matter, on the other hand, both in Aristotle and in neo-Platonism, is pure receptivity.  It's what receives form.  

 

Someone on here recently (I forget who) spoke of Christianity as more "pagan" than Jewish.  Much research has also been done into the connections between "pagan" thought and late ancient and medieval Jewish philosophy.  I'm not an expert on it.

As you can imagine, there are various opinions in Kabalah. The more standard for Ein Sof relates to being infinite without end. One form of the word relates to nothing. Some say this just means that it is not a thing, but not that it is nothing. My understanding is that the nothing form of the word relates to infinity's use of nothing in that the finite stems from the infinite through the use of nothing (infinity *0). In any case, the prime infinite source is beyond understanding, so it is of little help to contemplate its nature. Regardless, there is no way around the eternal infinite source, even though we can't define it.

[raoul]

 

 

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?

 

I won't presume to speak for Florduh however I think he probably sees where you would go with this. If math can prove your god then the next logical or theological step anyway would be to begin chatting about the bible god. In your case the ot one. Perhaps you weren't heading there but we have seen this trick, over and over, here and elsewhere. Get someone to agree about the existence of the imaginary being and then begin arguing for said being from the bible or elsewhere. I've done it myself when I was a theist so I know the apologetical tap dance quite well. And it doesn't matter whether you're a Jewish believer of a xtian one - your modus operandi is practically identical.

[stryper]

http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/dividing-by-zero.html

 

 

So let us try using our new "numbers".

For example, we know that zero times any number is zero:

Example: 0×1 = 0, 0×2 = 0, etc

So that should also be true for ¹/₀:

0 × (¹/₀) = 0

But we could also rearrange it a little like this:

0 × (¹/₀) = (⁰/₀) × 1 = 1

(Careful! I am not saying this is correct! , we are assuming that you can divide by zero, so 0/0 should work the same as 5/5, which is 1).

Arrggh! If you multiply ¹/₀ by zero you could get 0 or 1.

In fact you can't have both possibilites, so we cannot define ¹/₀ to be a number.

So it is undefined.

 

 

 

This very simple explanation  refutes exactly what you are trying to say Nat. 

 

0*infinity/0  could be 0 or infinity.  Therefore it doesn't work. 

 

This is why limits exist.   

[new2me]

Great post, stryper!

 

 

Another excerpt from that page kind of sums up this whole thread...

 

 

 

 

In conclusion:When you try to divide by zero, things stop making sense

That is all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stryper]

 

Great post, stryper!

 

 

Another excerpt from that page kind of sums up this whole thread...

 

 

 

 

In conclusion: When you try to divide by zero, things stop making sense

 

That is all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alot like apologetics in general.

[boftx]

Even if one were to grant that the math is correct (which no one here does) it still would not be a "proof" for the existence of something that can be called "God". It would still be only an analogy, useful for teaching those new to faith, maybe.