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

Status
Not open for further replies.
....Still, I remain hopeful.
OK. So OP has indeed posted this thread in bad faith.

Asks for critique, if anyone can poke holes in his conjecture.
Users oblige, in spades, tearing the conjecture to threads, line-by-line, for 100 posts.
OP sticks fingers in ears, pretends he didn't hear a thing. Learns nothing.

Reported for bad faith posting.


No one here is surprised in the slightest to find once again that the sum of belief and intelligence is a constant. The more you have of the former, the less you have of the latter. Now that's consistency for you.
 
Last edited:
Hmph. I edited the word 'intelligence' and replaced it with 'reason', but it did not save, apparently.

I can't profess to speak to a stranger's intelligence, but I can speak to their demonstrated ability to reason.
 
OK. So OP has indeed posted this thread in bad faith.

Asks for critique, if anyone can poke holes in his conjecture.
Users oblige, in spades, tearing the conjecture to threads, line-by-line, for 100 posts.
OP sticks fingers in ears, pretends he didn't hear a thing. Learns nothing.

Reported for bad faith posting.


No one here is surprised in the slightest to find once again that the sum of belief and intelligence is a constant. The more you have of the former, the less you have of the latter. Now that's consistency for you.

I did come to this amazing platform in good faith. I simply find it troubling that none here has acknowledged the coincidences revealed in the work. Not a single one. A review should be honest. I expected an explanation for the coincidences and why they prove consistent. Let us assume the work is comprised of positive and negative reviews. It would be encouraging to discuss the positives for once. The idea of fixing the Cross into a time clock and it corresponding with 369 and Romans 5:6, surely, has to be a topic to ponder upon, and I would be much invested in doing that.

Again, amazing platform.
 
I'm a little surprised this lot wasn't chucked over the side when it showed up.
If I'd been the captain that would have been the order, and I'd tell my men not to bother checking if it floated.
 
I'm a little surprised this lot wasn't chucked over the side when it showed up.
If I'd been the captain that would have been the order, and I'd tell my men not to bother checking if it floated.
It was not chucked over to the side because there are lots of exceptionally brilliant individuals on this platform who recognize the potential of the work, albeit struggle with its acceptance.
 
It was not chucked over to the side because there are lots of exceptionally brilliant individuals on this platform who recognize the potential of the work, albeit struggle with its acceptance.
Just to be clear, there nothing wrong with believing in god, being religious, following the teachings of Jesus.
I was a Bible believing Christian for 24 years.

This thing that you have contains internal inconsistencies and other problems, you will earn some respect if you address those points.
 
The Proof is not dependent upon our historical knowledge, nor is it dependent upon the thoughts of fallible Scholars. But rather, upon CONSISTENCY and The Word of God.
Unless God talks to you directly, ”The Word of God” came to you via the words of humans. How do you know there was a cross?
 
Last edited:
I simply find it troubling that none here has acknowledged the coincidences revealed in the work.
That is an honest acknowledgement. The few items that you haven't made up are coincidences.

I expected an explanation for the coincidences and why they prove consistent.
By definiton, coincidences don't need explaining. They are coincidences.


Three is an extremely common number in nature, if you go looking for it.
It is next in frequency only to
- two - for which you can find a nigh-infinite number of examples, and
- one - for which there are as many examples in nature as there are things in nature.

You know what's less common than three? Four.
I leave it as an exercise to the reader to deduce what is less common than four.

The idea of fixing the Cross into a time clock and it corresponding with 369 and Romans 5:6, surely, has to be a topic to ponder upon,
We did ponder. It was a short trip. Here it is again:

1. A (modern) clock has twelve marks, not three.
2. If you fix a cross to a clock it points at four marks: (3,6,9,12) not three.
This claim is just plain false.


Yes. People who wrote parts of the Bible were superstitious about number three. Of this there is no doubt. This is a study of humankind's propensity to find patterns where there is simply chaos.

Paredolia: the tendency to find patterns or meaning in random data, including numbers.
 
Last edited:
I did come to this amazing platform in good faith. I simply find it troubling that none here has acknowledged the coincidences revealed in the work. Not a single one.
Would you consider the possibility that, when you presented your conclusions and literally everyone questioned it on broadly the same points, it might just indicate that it is you who is mistaken and not everyone else?

A review should be honest. I expected an explanation for the coincidences and why they prove consistent.
Not seeing them as actual coincidences (or certainly not in any meaningful way) is honest, even if it wasn't what you wanted to hear.

It would be encouraging to discuss the positives for once.
So you only wanted to discuss your beliefs with people who agreed with you?
 
I did come to this amazing platform in good faith. I simply find it troubling that none here has acknowledged the coincidences revealed in the work. Not a single one.
Therefore, you are wrong if everyone shows you how you are wrong. Ignoring everyone's critique means you did not come here in good faith.
A review should be honest. I expected an explanation for the coincidences and why they prove consistent.
That's what you received, honest critiques of your posts. You provided no explanations to your work, you simply made statements that we were to accept as true, but they weren't true.
Let us assume the work is comprised of positive and negative reviews. It would be encouraging to discuss the positives for once.
You won't find positive reviews of your work because there is nothing positive about it. You should try understanding that rather than just ignoring everyone.
The idea of fixing the Cross into a time clock and it corresponding with 369 and Romans 5:6, surely, has to be a topic to ponder upon, and I would be much invested in doing that.
It's nonsense, so there's nothing to ponder.
Again, amazing platform.
Again, your work is nonsense
 
It was not chucked over to the side because there are lots of exceptionally brilliant individuals on this platform who recognize the potential of the work, albeit struggle with its acceptance.
That's not true at all, no one here said your work has potential, no need to lie about that.
 
I have a challenge to present here:

1. When a number is multiplied by 9, the digital root of the product will be 9.

  • 9 x 20 = 180; 1 + 8 + 0 = 9;
  • 9 x 30 = 270; 2 + 7 + 0 = 9;
  • 9 x 40 = 360; 3 + 6 + 0 = 9;
Why is that? And why is this phenomenon exclusive to the number 9?

2. The Digital Root of any Trinity of Numbers(e.g. 111, 222, 333) is either 3, 6 , or 9.

111 » 1 + 1 + 1 = 3
222 » 2 + 2 + 2 = 6
333 » 3 + 3 + 3 = 9

This goes on for all eternity. Why is that?

3. The Earth is the 3rd of 9 planets. Why is that?

I have made an attempt at providing clarity to this wonders. Let us assume I might be incorrect. Now I present this 3 questions here for answers.

Please, refrain from saying that is just the way numbers work.
 
I have a challenge to present here:

1. When a number is multiplied by 9, the digital root of the product will be 9.

  • 9 x 20 = 180; 1 + 8 + 0 = 9;
  • 9 x 30 = 270; 2 + 7 + 0 = 9;
  • 9 x 40 = 360; 3 + 6 + 0 = 9;
Why is that?
1. Because that is what happens with base 10. If you chose a different base, you would have the same thing happen, just at a different breakpoint.
2. Because numbers are infinitely manipulable. You have chosen this particular form of manipulation because it results in an answer you like. If you had wanted to "prove" some other numbers because they took you fancy, you could just choose a different form of manipulation, say, the squares or the modulo or the logs, or whatever.

And why is this phenomenon exclusive to the number 9?
Because you have chosen base 10 for some reason. Likely because it is popular in the 21st century in which you live. But it is arbitrary.

I am a programmer, and I am familiar with other useful bases, such as 2 and 8 and 16, and they have breakpoints in other places

2. The Digital Root of any Trinity of Numbers(e.g. 111, 222, 333) is either 3, 6 , or 9.

111 » 1 + 1 + 1 = 3
222 » 2 + 2 + 2 = 6
333 » 3 + 3 + 3 = 9

This goes on for all eternity. Why is that?
Because that's how base 10 numbers work.

3. The Earth is the 3rd of 9 planets. Why is that?
No it isn't.

1. There are eight planets.
2.Earth is actually the sixth planet as you come into the solar system.

Do you see how you have made up your mind about what you want to find, and then digital looking for it? You ignore results that don't suit your idea.

Please, refrain from saying that is just the way numbers work.
Why? Because it's true?
 
Last edited:
Please, refrain from saying that is just the way numbers work.
Please tell me why this thread shouldn't be cesspooled for the nonsense it is, but please refrain from telling me why it shouldn't be cesspooled for the nonsense it is.
 
there are lots of exceptionally brilliant individuals on this platform who recognize the potential of the work, albeit struggle with its acceptance.
And another claim for which you have no evidence.
 
kingiyk:

Let's consider one example:
2. The Digital Root of any Trinity of Numbers(e.g. 111, 222, 333) is either 3, 6 , or 9.

111 » 1 + 1 + 1 = 3
222 » 2 + 2 + 2 = 6
333 » 3 + 3 + 3 = 9

This goes on for all eternity. Why is that?

This is just a mathematical fact. There's nothing remarkable about it. It's just a feature of numbers.

If we add the digits of a "trinity number", we get:

$$x+x+x=3x$$

That is, the sum of the digits is necessarily a number that is divisible by 3. Now, the sum of digits could be a single digit number or it could be a two digit number. Let's consider both cases:

Case 1. Suppose the sum of the digits is a 1 digit number.

Which one-digit numbers are divisible by 3? Answer: 3, 6, 9.

Case 2. Suppose instead that the sum of the digits is a 2 digit number, which we can write as "ab", where a is the first digit and b is the second digit.

We know that:

$$10a + b = 3x.$$

where x is an integer. Now consider the sum of the digits of the 2 digit number:

a+b =(10a+b) - 9a

But we have already shown that 10a + b = 3x, so

$$a+b = (10a+b) - 9a = 3x - 9a = 3(x-3a)$$

This shows that the digital sum of the 2 digit number must, itself, be a multiple of 3. Now, either that sum is a single digit number, or it is another 2 digit number, but for the new sum, we're back to exactly the same situation again. We can break it down into case 1 or case 2, rinse and repeat, to prove that the "digital sum" must be a multiple of 3, again, using the same arguments as above.

It follows that, because the only single digits that are multiples of 3 are 3, 6 and 9, the "digital sums" of all "trinity numbers" must be either 3, 6 or 9.

What about repeated patterns? For instance, what about a number like 145145145, where the "pattern" is repeated 3 times?

Consider the "digital sum" of a number like that. It consists of three repeated "digital sums" of the same 3 digit number (in this example the number 145). Suppose the sum of the the digit number is y, then the big number sum of digits must be 3y, which is a multiple of 3, again.

The digital sum of the digits of a 9-digit number can only have a maximum of 2 digits. But we have already shown that every two-digit number that is divisible by 3 must have a digital sum that is also divisible by 3 (the proof is given above). Therefore, when we repeat the "digital sum" process, we must end up with a result of 3, 6 or 9, for the same reasons that were considered above.
---

What's the significance of all this? Well, we've learned some interesting facts about numbers, maybe. What have we learned about God and the Holy Trinity? Nothing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top