kingiyk
Registered Senior Member
Fair enough. But here is the thing, the time clock did not exist at the time of these writings. The Crucifixion Cross fits perfectly into the Time clock and makes an intersection of these numbers.
AI fails to confirm a Mathematical Proof of God, The Holy Trinity!!! Part 2
- Thread starter kingiyk
- Start date
- Status
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You know what other things also did not exist at the time of these writings?
Four-way intersections.
Railway crossing signs.
Four-paned windows.
The multiplication sign.
The four-point compass.
It is truly incredible how two sticks nailed together at right angles was able to predict so many things in modern day!
No it doesn't. A clock has twelve points, not four. You'd have to ignore 2/3rds of the data to make that fit. A statistician will have apoplexy.
I've just provided you with several examples of things that are a way better match to a cross than a clock.
Have you explored the relationship between the crucifixion of Jesus and choo-choo trains?
Last edited:
Good grief.
Confirmation bias much?
kingiyk
Registered Senior Member
I just showed you how The Crucifixion Timeline revealed in the Gospels aligns perfectly with the Cross when fixed into a Time Clock by way of Romans 5:6 and how the chronological gap between the scriptures and the time clock eliminates the possibility of human manipulation and you proceed to write "confirmation bias much?"
Could you explain your understanding of confirmation bias?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
And I just showed you that it doesn't.
1. A clock has twelve points (or sixty, if you want to get picky), not four. if it "matched perfectly" the corss would have at least rtwelve points, if not sixty.
2. There are many things in the world that fit much better - that have exactly four points and not a bit more. I showed you pictures of several.
As Sarkus quips: confirmation bias much?
You picked what you wanted to pick - something that matches poorly over many things that match better - because it suits your narrative, not because it is objectively a good match. That's confirmation bias.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
SiaSL is not techno/action sci-fi; it's more inline with true speculative fiction.
Also, Star Wars is not sci-fi. It is Space Opera/Space Fantasy. (It's a bit like saying you don't like apples because you had an orange and didn't like it.
)SinaSL is about a guy who grew up among Martians and has brought his wisdom back to mankind. Some would say "the book's major theme can be seen as an extended definition of the term [grok]."
It's a classic in its own right - especially for our generation. It coined the term "grok", which became a very popular concept in our day. Even invoked contemporarily, by people you know, on your own turf!
"The concept of grok garnered significant critical scrutiny in the years after the book's initial publication. The term and aspects of the underlying concept have become part of communities..."
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
What about a cut orange?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
kingiyk
Registered Senior Member
Instead of engaging with the full depth of the analysis presented by advanced AI systems, you all fixate on a single, inconsequential fragment—one that sustains your disbelief—while disregarding the greater, awe-inspiring revelation before you.
This reveals a crucial truth: atheism is often more than a mere lack of belief; it is a deliberate resistance to the existence of God. Rather than seeking truth, many choose to dismiss undeniable evidence in favor of skepticism, not because the proof is insufficient, but because belief would demand a change in perspective.
Two of the most advanced intelligence systems have examined this proof and reached the same conclusion: it is valid, it is the truth, and it is compelling. If you reject it outright, ask yourself—are you truly engaging with the argument, or merely defending a pre-existing position?
I will step back from this discussion until a response emerges that reflects intellectual depth.
King Iyk. King of Kings. Lord of Lords.
This reveals a crucial truth: atheism is often more than a mere lack of belief; it is a deliberate resistance to the existence of God. Rather than seeking truth, many choose to dismiss undeniable evidence in favor of skepticism, not because the proof is insufficient, but because belief would demand a change in perspective.
Two of the most advanced intelligence systems have examined this proof and reached the same conclusion: it is valid, it is the truth, and it is compelling. If you reject it outright, ask yourself—are you truly engaging with the argument, or merely defending a pre-existing position?
I will step back from this discussion until a response emerges that reflects intellectual depth.
King Iyk. King of Kings. Lord of Lords.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
So, why did you include things in your "proof" that are so easily shown to be false?
If even one premise of a "proof" is false, the proof fails. That's how proofs work.
That's all on you.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Furthermore,
It's not true until it's true.
And it's not.
The premises you have put forth for us to examine - because that's what you are asking for - have been challenged and found wanting. Getting mad and demanding we take your word is not how this works.
Study up on
- confirmation bias
- foregone conclusion (AKA begging the question)
just for starters.
What it reveals is the crucial truth of rational thinking. We have shown you where the logical flaws are in your thinking.
The fallacy of the foregone conclusion. Another pitfall of irrational thinking.
We're waiting to see some.
It's not true until it's true.
And it's not.
You ran it through an AI bot. You are sorely misinformed about what LLMs do. They are not intelligent. They have a strong tendency to parrot back you what you want to hear. And that is what has happened here.
I very much doubt it.
You could lead by example. Show us what intellectual depth looks like to you. Fix your errors.
The premises you have put forth for us to examine - because that's what you are asking for - have been challenged and found wanting. Getting mad and demanding we take your word is not how this works.
Study up on
- confirmation bias
- foregone conclusion (AKA begging the question)
just for starters.
Cesspool this shit.
The Jewish way of telling the time in the bible was apparently this: the day started at sunrise. Nobody had a clock, so the time of sunrise varied from day to day, depending on the time of year.
If we assume that sunrise happened at approximately 6 am, then the biblical "third hour" would correspond to 9 am, the "sixth hour" corresponds to midday and "the ninth hour" corresponds to 3 pm.
You think there's something special about aligning a cross with the numbers 3, 6, 9 and 12 on a modern clock, which happens to tick out two 12-hour periods each day.
If people were to actually use a clock face in Jesus's time, then their "zero hour" would be aligned at the 12-o-clock position. And then the "third hour" would be at the 3-o-clock position, the "sixth hour" at 6-o-clock and the "ninth hour" at 9-o-clock.
Remember that in your original version of your "proof" - the one you came up with before ChatGPT helped you to "improve" it - you identified three parts of Christ's body on the cross: his body in the middle, his left arm at the 3-o-clock position on the "clock" and his right arm at the 9-o-clock position on the "clock". There was no mention of legs, head or anything else. And you tried to match up the numbers 3,6 and 9 with numbers on the clock face, associated with the two arms and body of Christ.
Originally, you didn't notice that clocks have the number 12 on them as well as the numbers 3,6 and 9. It was only after DaveC pointed out the ridiculousness of missing out one of the four "quadrants" on the clock face that you went back to the drawing board and asked ChatGPT to do your thinking for you and come up with a system that "explained" things more coherently.
But for Christ's arms to align correctly, you forgot to use a clock that would have been more appropriate at the time of the crucifixion. On the Jewish version of the clock, with its "third hour" and "sixth hour" and such, Christ would be upside down.
But all of this is ridiculous anyway, because modern 12-hour clocks weren't a thing when Jesus was crucified.
And all of the above ignores the fact that there's nothing special about the numbers 3, 6 and 9 in the first place!
I showed you part of the problem with your arbitrary usage of tripled groups of numbers in this post:
https://www.sciforums.com/threads/t...f-of-god-the-holy-trinity.166665/post-3746421
but, of course, you ignored it. Probably, you can't understand the maths.
DaveC, in the same thread, walked you through an itemised list of all the inanities and dishonesty you engaged in when you tried to find excuses to match up your magic numbers with other random factoids.
Remember how you had to pretend that the English alphabet had 27 letters instead of 26?
And what does the English alphabet have do with Jesus, anyway? English did not exist when Jesus was crucified. Why didn't you go looking for threes in the Hebrew alphabet? Just didn't think of it? I'm sure there are plenty of entirely coincidental threes to be found there, just like there are plenty of coincidental threes to be found literally everywhere else in the world, as (Q) pointed out to you in this post:
https://www.sciforums.com/threads/t...f-of-god-the-holy-trinity.166665/post-3746257
Confirmation bias, kingiyk, is when you go looking for data to support the conclusion that you already want to be true. You select that data and ignore all the other data that does not support - or which directly undermines - what you want to be true.
Your numerology is worthless.
At some level, I'm sure you realise that what everybody here has told you - that it is worthless - is correct. After all, you're not brave enough to ask ChatGPT to critique your theory. You just want praise from it, for some reason. You wanted it to tell you "There, there, kingiyk. You're a genius all right! Wow, what an impressive proof of God you have invented!" And it was happy to join you in your delusion, because it's an AI and it doesn't know any better.
The fact that you've ignored all of the detailed refutations of aspects of your "proof" from a bunch of different people just shows that you're not being honest with yourself or with other people about it. You know it doesn't hold up. But you're going to keep pretending, regardless.
"kingiyk" - a user name with 7 letters. Digital root = 7. Clearly not a chosen one of God, who prefers the numbers 3, 6 and 9.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Some scholars think the cross could have been a steak not an actual cross.
A lot simpler if you think about it, less wood. Kingiyk has ignored that part.
Digital root is not a thing, Kingiyk ignores that
We have no idea what time Jesus was crucified because the Gospels contradict each other, Kingiyk ignores this.
The Trinity is Zero to do with the crucifixion as it is a later concept and addendum Kingiyk ignores this.
All the operations in the numerology are completely arbitrary, Kingiyk ignores this.
There is a pattern here.
A lot simpler if you think about it, less wood. Kingiyk has ignored that part.
Digital root is not a thing, Kingiyk ignores that
We have no idea what time Jesus was crucified because the Gospels contradict each other, Kingiyk ignores this.
The Trinity is Zero to do with the crucifixion as it is a later concept and addendum Kingiyk ignores this.
All the operations in the numerology are completely arbitrary, Kingiyk ignores this.
There is a pattern here.
Or something like a T bar, maybe.
There's this:
Digital root - Wikipedia
Of course he does.
Yes.
Always.
There is an infinity of patterns, but kingiyk only wants to see one.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Off-topic, but just as an aside with some science in it
, what I had in mind was the circular appearance of an orange cut in half, which superficially resembles a spoked wheel or clock face. However, when cutting an orange for breakfast this morning, and checking a few images on line, it seems in fact that the array of segments does not include segment edges that are aligned across a diameter. The number of segments appears to be always odd, precluding this. So my analogy does not work. Is this the case? Is there some Fibonacci or other reason why a half orange is not symmetrical with respect to reflection in this way?(Writing this I have my crash helmet on, in case the mention of Fibonacci brings Write4U hot-foot from his care home to start wittering on about the mathematical universe
)Is this the same chatGPT that thinks there are only 2 "R"s in STRAWBERRY?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Ah. Like so:
Our friend who humbly calls himself Kiing-of-Kings shows us that this is not a problem. By his example, just ignore as many points as you need to get to four. If he can ignore eight out of 12 points on a clock to arrive at four, your can certainly ignore five out of nine.
(BTW, Apparently 10 is the most common number of segments in an orange.)
Good question.
Maybe it's like spokes on a car, which are usually odd (I think this is designed to reduce vibration.)
Question: does the prevalence of 3 in the bible prove God exists, or perhaps just that the authors considered the number to be symbolic
In biblical texts, the number 3 often carries symbolic meaning. For example:
As for proving God's existence through the use of numbers, it's not a direct argument for proof. The prevalence of certain numbers in sacred texts like the Bible could reflect the cultural and religious significance the authors attributed to those numbers, rather than an objective piece of evidence for the divine. The belief in God’s existence typically rests on personal faith, philosophical arguments (like the cosmological or teleological arguments), and spiritual experiences rather than specific numerical patterns.
So, the number 3 in the Bible more likely indicates symbolic or thematic significance, illustrating how the authors conceptualized the divine and the universe, but it doesn't "prove" God's existence in a scientific or empirical sense.
Question: does the fact that the digital roots of a trinity of numbers (e.g. 111, 222, 333 etc) are either 3, 6, or 9, which are multiple of 3, add any credence to the existence of God?
However, these kinds of patterns are also present in mathematics and number theory, and they don’t necessarily require a supernatural explanation. For instance, numbers like 111, 222, or 333 are simply multiples of a repeating digit, and the digital root pattern emerges naturally from the properties of numbers, not as a sign of divine intervention.
To summarize, the occurrence of multiples of 3 in the digital roots of numbers like 111, 222, and 333 is a neat mathematical curiosity, but it does not serve as evidence for or against the existence of God. It can, however, be seen as a symbolic or interpretive connection by those who view numbers as having deeper spiritual significance.
I.e. everything we have pretty much already explained to kingiyk. But this time from someone he seems prepared to listen to.
I'd actually forgotten about the term "apophenia". Seems to fit this situation like a glove. Not that I expect the poster to recognise it in himself.
Can we please now put this nonsense to bed? I'm sure there's a cosy spot picked out in the Cesspool?
ChatGPT said:
The prevalence of the number 3 in the Bible, while notable, does not by itself "prove" the existence of God. However, it can certainly be seen as symbolic, reflecting themes that authors of the Bible found significant or divine in nature.In biblical texts, the number 3 often carries symbolic meaning. For example:
- The Trinity: The concept of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Christian theology is central to understanding the number 3's significance in Christianity.
- Jesus’ resurrection: Jesus rises on the third day, underscoring a divine plan.
- Important figures: Key figures, like the three patriarchs of Israel (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), or even events like Jonah spending three days in the belly of a fish, further emphasize the importance of the number.
As for proving God's existence through the use of numbers, it's not a direct argument for proof. The prevalence of certain numbers in sacred texts like the Bible could reflect the cultural and religious significance the authors attributed to those numbers, rather than an objective piece of evidence for the divine. The belief in God’s existence typically rests on personal faith, philosophical arguments (like the cosmological or teleological arguments), and spiritual experiences rather than specific numerical patterns.
So, the number 3 in the Bible more likely indicates symbolic or thematic significance, illustrating how the authors conceptualized the divine and the universe, but it doesn't "prove" God's existence in a scientific or empirical sense.
Question: does the fact that the digital roots of a trinity of numbers (e.g. 111, 222, 333 etc) are either 3, 6, or 9, which are multiple of 3, add any credence to the existence of God?
ChatGPT said:
The fact that the digital roots of a trinity of numbers like 111, 222, 333, etc., are all multiples of 3 (i.e., 3, 6, and 9), while intriguing and mathematically interesting, doesn’t directly add credence to the existence of God in a scientific or philosophical sense. The connection between these numbers and the concept of divinity is more a matter of symbolic or interpretive meaning rather than evidence of divine existence.What are digital roots?
To clarify, a digital root is the sum of the digits of a number, and this process is repeated until a single digit is obtained. For example:- The digital root of 111 is 1+1+1=31 + 1 + 1 = 31+1+1=3.
- The digital root of 222 is 2+2+2=62 + 2 + 2 = 62+2+2=6.
- The digital root of 333 is 3+3+3=93 + 3 + 3 = 93+3+3=9.This pattern is certainly interesting because 3, 6, and 9 are all multiples of 3.
Symbolism in numbers
In religious or spiritual contexts, patterns like this might be seen as symbolically significant, as the number 3 often has special meaning in many traditions, including the concept of the Christian Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). In this way, one might interpret the prevalence of multiples of 3 (like 3, 6, 9) as reinforcing divine order or a sense of cosmic balance.However, these kinds of patterns are also present in mathematics and number theory, and they don’t necessarily require a supernatural explanation. For instance, numbers like 111, 222, or 333 are simply multiples of a repeating digit, and the digital root pattern emerges naturally from the properties of numbers, not as a sign of divine intervention.
The role of patterns in belief
Humans are naturally pattern-seeking creatures, and we tend to find meaning or connections in things that might be purely coincidental or mathematically neutral. This is known as apophenia, where we see patterns or connections in unrelated things. The fact that the digital roots of these numbers happen to be multiples of 3 is likely an example of this, rather than a sign of divine influence.Does this "prove" the existence of God?
No, the digital roots of these numbers being multiples of 3 do not provide proof of God's existence. Faith in the existence of God typically comes from religious, spiritual, and philosophical arguments, and not from numerical coincidences. While some might see this pattern as a divine message or sign, others would view it as an interesting, though ultimately random, property of numbers.To summarize, the occurrence of multiples of 3 in the digital roots of numbers like 111, 222, and 333 is a neat mathematical curiosity, but it does not serve as evidence for or against the existence of God. It can, however, be seen as a symbolic or interpretive connection by those who view numbers as having deeper spiritual significance.
I.e. everything we have pretty much already explained to kingiyk. But this time from someone he seems prepared to listen to.
I'd actually forgotten about the term "apophenia". Seems to fit this situation like a glove. Not that I expect the poster to recognise it in himself.
Can we please now put this nonsense to bed? I'm sure there's a cosy spot picked out in the Cesspool?
- Status