The Truth: The Mathematical Proof Of God, The Holy Trinity.

[kingiyk]

There is no "proof." This is stupid unscientific nonsense and I have given you a couple of objections which you have ignored. I have to bow out.

Actually, you have given none, and some day in the not-so-distant future, you will acknowledge this Truth.

 

[billvon]

"When The Cross is fixed into a Time Clock, the co-ordinates are 3 6 9 and 12.

Then the picture in your proof is wrong; it only shows 3.

Now that we have pointed out the flaws in your theory, what will you do?

 

[(Q)]

Actually, you have given none,

You're a fraud and now a liar.

 

[exchemist]

That's four.

and 12. As you literally just finished saying explicitly.


So, because three is your chosen number, you just eliminate the fourth.

"The compass has three points!" you say. "East West and South, with North to unify them."




No. Each of your premises must stand on its own, If any one of them (let alone most of them) don't make the grade, they fall, and take the conclusion with them.

1. What you're trying to do is tantamount to this:
I claim that two to the fourth power is 18. Here is my proof:
P1: 2x2=4.
P2: 4x2=9.
P2: 9x2=18.

Er. One of your premises is false. 4x2 does not equal 9. So the conclusion you came to is wrong.

Well the proof must be examined in its entirety. Ripping out a segment as you did is disingenuous. (I mean, I got some of it right, didn't I? The other two premises are correct. Don't I still get credit?)"

No. Faulty premises result in faulty conclusions. Full stop.

The list of your premises could be gone through one by one but really, there's no need.



2. Look, here's another one:
"The Earth is the Third of Nine Planets."

Says who? Certainly not the Bible.
It was the only planet for Millenia, then it was one of five for a while, then it was one of six, then seven, then eight, then nine. Now it's eight again.

All of these counts are due to modern human decisions, over centuries - and in some case, simply boards of humans: the Royal Astronomical Society said Pluto isn't a planet so it isn't. (Was God sitting on that board? Or was he only interested in the 76-year period of 1930 till 2006, the only years that there were nine planets?)

So you can choose any number you want, from one to nine however it suits your preferred flavour of idea. This is what it means to torture the facts to fit the idea.

All your premises are using arbitrary numbers to suit your idea.



3. Here's another:

"(I need to find things with threes...) Birds have two wings and a body. So do whales."

Birds have heads, feet and tails. Whales have flukes. Why do you stop at three?

When I asked you why, you said: "Ah well because when The Cross is fixed into a Time Clock, the co-ordinates are 3 6 9 and 12. The Cross is comprised of three entities:
3, 6, 9"

For one: No it isn't; you just listed four. Again, do you just drop one when it doesn't fit?
But more to the point: What do birds and whales have to do with crosses? Where in the Bible was a bird or whale crucified on a cross?

You have decided a priori that three is The Number of Things you consider significant, and then you go looking for instances of threes in things.

• But when you find four or five or six things (such as body parts) you just stop at three and make up a justification about coordinates of a cross.
• And the cross is - itself - not three; it's four. So, once again, you just stop counting at three and make up a new name for the fourth.
• Or when you find only eight things (such as planets) or seven or six or five or one, (and arbitrarily labeled as such by humans for a mere 76 years) you just pick the number that suits your a priori target: nine. Wait, what's nine? I thought it was three?
• Yes, nine is still not three, so you have to do some further arithmetic gymnastics on it until it becomes three.

(Look at that. I gave you exactly three examples. Surely that's a sign of unity with the cosmos, proving I'm right! Or did I just stop at three and call it unity with the cosmos? See how easy it is?)


This is textbook Numerology; it is the pastime of generating illusory meaning in meaningless numbers by grinding them just enough - and stopping at just the right time - to get the numbers you want.


Numerology is Element Nu. 14th on the Periodic Table of Irrational Nonsense, snuggled up with Perpetual Motion, Astrology and in the Delusions-Block.


View attachment 6440

This is great. I need to have it on my wall.

 

[Sarkus]

Seriously, why is anyone bothering to give this any airtime? It seems to be garbage, and the OP is not engaging honestly. Cesspool material.

 

[exchemist]

Seriously, why is anyone bothering to give this any airtime? It seems to be garbage, and the OP is not engaging honestly. Cesspool material.

I expect there may be some temporary withdrawal symptoms following the expulsion of Magical Realist.

 

[DaveC426913]

Seriously, why is anyone bothering to give this any airtime? It seems to be garbage, and the OP is not engaging honestly. Cesspool material.

I try to have a policy of engaging people who at least show the trappings of wanting to discuss even flawed ideas. It costs nothing to err on the side of generous.

1. Sometimes posters can be brought around, after they get over their (well-justified) initial defensiveness.

Which sign would we prefer hanging over the Sci-Fo door?
"We are open for business until and unless such time as you prove yourself dishonest."
"We are closed for business until and unless such time as you prove yourself not dishonest."

2. Responses are not always intended for the poster. Other people are, and will be, reading this (it probably won't go to the cesspool), and can benefit from the responses. In the UAP thread, Magical Realist has provided a wealth of fodder that makes for teachable moments - a book's worth of how not to be a "buffoon". (Eh? See what I did there? That's gonna be my title.)


Do I think the OP is going to back out, continuing to think his ideas are sound? Sure. But it costs me nothing little to engage in good faith anyway. That's about my character, not about the character of whom I am talking to.

 

[exchemist]

I try to have a policy of engaging people who at least show the trappings of wanting to discuss even flawed ideas. It costs nothing to err on the side of generous.

1. Sometimes posters can be brought around, after they get over their (well-justified) initial defensiveness.

Which sign would we prefer hanging over the Sci-Fo door?
"We are open for business until and unless such time as you prove yourself dishonest."
"We are closed for business until and unless such time as you prove yourself not dishonest."

2. Responses are not always intended for the poster. Other people are, and will be, reading this (it probably won't go to the cesspool), and can benefit from the responses. In the UAP thread, Magical Realist has provided a wealth of fodder that makes for teachable moments - a book's worth of how not to be a "buffoon". (Eh? See what I did there? That's gonna be my title.)


Do I think the OP is going to back out, continuing to think his ideas are sound? Sure. But it costs me nothing little to engage in good faith anyway. That's about my character, not about the character of whom I am talking to.

Yes that’s fair enough. We all have different levels at which we withdraw the benefit of the doubt, I suppose.

 

[kingiyk]

That's four.

and 12. As you literally just finished saying explicitly.


So, because three is your chosen number, you just eliminate the fourth.

"The compass has three points!" you say. "East West and South, with North to unify them."




No. Each of your premises must stand on its own, If any one of them (let alone most of them) don't make the grade, they fall, and take the conclusion with them.

1. What you're trying to do is tantamount to this:
I claim that two to the fourth power is 18. Here is my proof:
P1: 2x2=4.
P2: 4x2=9.
P2: 9x2=18.

Er. One of your premises is false. 4x2 does not equal 9. So the conclusion you came to is wrong.

Well the proof must be examined in its entirety. Ripping out a segment as you did is disingenuous. (I mean, I got some of it right, didn't I? The other two premises are correct. Don't I still get credit?)"

No. Faulty premises result in faulty conclusions. Full stop.

The list of your premises could be gone through one by one but really, there's no need.



2. Look, here's another one:
"The Earth is the Third of Nine Planets."

Says who? Certainly not the Bible.
It was the only planet for Millenia, then it was one of five for a while, then it was one of six, then seven, then eight, then nine. Now it's eight again.

All of these counts are due to modern human decisions, over centuries - and in some case, simply boards of humans: the Royal Astronomical Society said Pluto isn't a planet so it isn't. (Was God sitting on that board? Or was he only interested in the 76-year period of 1930 till 2006, the only years that there were nine planets?)

So you can choose any number you want, from one to nine however it suits your preferred flavour of idea. This is what it means to torture the facts to fit the idea.

All your premises are using arbitrary numbers to suit your idea.



3. Here's another:

"(I need to find things with threes...) Birds have two wings and a body. So do whales."

Birds have heads, feet and tails. Whales have flukes. Why do you stop at three?

When I asked you why, you said: "Ah well because when The Cross is fixed into a Time Clock, the co-ordinates are 3 6 9 and 12. The Cross is comprised of three entities:
3, 6, 9"

For one: No it isn't; you just listed four. Again, do you just drop one when it doesn't fit?
But more to the point: What do birds and whales have to do with crosses? Where in the Bible was a bird or whale crucified on a cross?

You have decided a priori that three is The Number of Things you consider significant, and then you go looking for instances of threes in things.

• But when you find four or five or six things (such as body parts) you just stop at three and make up a justification about coordinates of a cross.
• And the cross is - itself - not three; it's four. So, once again, you just stop counting at three and make up a new name for the fourth.
• Or when you find only eight things (such as planets) or seven or six or five or one, (and arbitrarily labeled as such by humans for a mere 76 years) you just pick the number that suits your a priori target: nine. Wait, what's nine? I thought it was three?
• Yes, nine is still not three, so you have to do some further arithmetic gymnastics on it until it becomes three.

(Look at that. I gave you exactly three examples. Surely that's a sign of unity with the cosmos, proving I'm right! Or did I just stop at three and call it unity with the cosmos? See how easy it is?)


This is textbook Numerology; it is the pastime of generating illusory meaning in meaningless numbers by grinding them just enough - and stopping at just the right time - to get the numbers you want.


Numerology is Element Nu. 14th on the Periodic Table of Irrational Nonsense, snuggled up with Perpetual Motion, Astrology and in the Delusions-Block.


View attachment 6440

There are 4 components of The Cross. You are correct about that. However, the essence of The Cross is to illustrate how three (3,6,9) could be united by one (12) - Trinity.

 

[Sarkus]

Yes that’s fair enough. We all have different levels at which we withdraw the benefit of the doubt, I suppose.

When there is no testable claim, no "proof" of anything, and when the OP doesn't seem to understand that he's simply asserting his personal belief as true, and shows no sign of engaging honestly, then the benefit of the doubt should be removed forthwith.
This is garbage stuff. Treat it as such.
Replying at length to such arrant nonsense is just an exercise in ego-stroking, and efforts at justifying those responses just virtue-signalling.

Cesspool (or other place for such nonsense).

 

[DaveC426913]

There are 4 components of The Cross. You are correct about that. However, the essence of The Cross is to illustrate how three (3,6,9) could be united by one (12) - Trinity.

That's all you've got to say? I take that means the rest of my analysis stands uncontested.

 

[HonestJoe]

I have been unsuccessful in my search for an individual who could find a flaw in The Proof. Still, I remain hopeful.

If you were so keen to find someone who could identify a flaw in your "proof", why did you ignore me when you couldn't counter the fact I did exactly that? Even if it were in any way valid, your "proof" does not match your hypothesis.

 

[billvon]

There are 4 components of The Cross.

OK. So looks like there's a flaw in the "everything is a trinity" numerology theory.

 

[DaveC426913]

OK. So looks like there's a flaw in the "everything is a trinity" numerology theory.

The theory:
Make up groups of three.

1. If there's two things, find another. Now you have a three.
2. If there's four things, set one aside as a controller of the other three. Now you have a three.
3. Count parts of things as-needed. Make sure to count up to three parts, ignoring parts four five and six, etc.
4. If the number changes over time - first one then two then five, six, seven, eight, nine things - and then eight things again: choose the one where it's nine.
5. if there's anything that has three as a factor (such as nine), you get that three free.
6. Add items to enumerated lists until the number of items is a multiple of three.

 

[kingiyk]

If you were so keen to find someone who could identify a flaw in your "proof", why did you ignore me when you couldn't counter the fact I did exactly that? Even if it were in any way valid, your "proof" does not match your hypothesis.

That is because you make no direct reference to The proof on the webpage. Click the link on the page, skim through all seven segments of the Proof, detect where you disagree with and highlight them here and we shall have an in-depth exchange with words. The comments you have made so far could be applied to the numerous false proofs of God out there and fit right in. Make this specific to The Proof and watch your doubts vanish into thin air. Deal?

 

[DaveC426913]

That is because you make no direct reference to The proof on the webpage.

We have referenced content presented here.

Click the link on the page, skim through all seven segments of the Proof, detect where you disagree with and highlight them here and we shall have an in-depth exchange with words.

You sought us out, We didn't seek you out.

You came here for feedback. We are providing it.
We have no obligation to go to your website and give you free publicity.

Make this specific to The Proof and watch your doubts vanish into thin air. Deal?

I have quoted parts of your "proof" here, and dismantled them. I notice you have not addressed those points.

Stop making excuses.

We will address parts of your "proof" that you present here, a few at a time.

 

[HonestJoe]

That is because you make no direct reference to The proof on the webpage.

The page you linked delcares that;

Within this text is The Proof, beyond an ounce of doubt, by way of the language of the Universe: Mathematics, that The Triune God is The One True God and The Holy Bible is His Word.

Even if all of the mathematical connections subsequently listed were accurate, the most they could demonstrate would be some kind of internal mathematical consistency within (your interpretation of) the Bible. That alone could never be evidence for the existence of God, it being the only God, that God being a Trinity or the Bible being "His word".

Again, the "proof" (evidence) presented simply does not relate to the hypothesis proposed. I don't know how more detail I could give.

 

[DaveC426913]

The page you linked delcares that;


Even if all of the mathematical connections subsequently listed were accurate, the most they could demonstrate would be some kind of internal mathematical consistency within (your interpretation of) the Bible. That alone could never be evidence for the existence of God, it being the only God, that God being a Trinity or the Bible being "His word".

Again, the "proof" (evidence) presented simply does not relate to the hypothesis proposed. I don't know how more detail I could give.

Well said. Nitpicking details is one thing, but the OP has committed a category error thinking numerology can prove anything about the real world.

 

[kingiyk]

We have referenced content presented here.


You sought us out, We didn't seek you out.

You came here for feedback. We are providing it.
We have no obligation to go to your website and give you free publicity.


I have quoted parts of your "proof" here, and dismantled them. I notice you have not addressed those points.

Stop making excuses.

We will address parts of your "proof" that you present here, a few at a time.

 

[DaveC426913]

1. Posting in the form of images is the equivalent of paying your tax bill in pennies. It's passive aggressive. But OK.

2. This is a discussion forum. You are expected to engage in a two-way dialogue. We expect answers. Mere preaching is strongly discouraged, and will be reported as a violation of the rules.



Here's another example of disingenuous numerology.



See Rule 1. If there's twenty-six things, make up another one. Now you have twenty-seven.

1. Why do you need to add "&"? It is not a letter of the alphabet. (I mean, why - other than to force an arbitrary set to be the number you want?) Can you answer this?

2. The authors of the Bible did not use the English alphabet. Can you explain why you've chosen a modern, western language to make your point?

3. The English alphabet did not have 26 letters until the 16th century. Long after the original manuscripts of the Bible were written. Can you explain how this is relevant?

4. You missed the fact that 27 is 3 to the power of 3. If you include this in your "proof" I want credit.

5. You still haven't explained how playing with numbers (let alone making numbers up) says anything about the real world. Can you explain that?



You keep calling it a proof, and you keep referring to math as your universal language of choice. OK. In math, a proof is only proven if every single one of its premises holds true. If a single premise is flawed, the proof fails. We've drilled holes in, what? a half dozen of your premises now? I'd say your proof has been disproven. Wouldn't you agree?