Take The Time to Review and Confirm The Mathematical Proof of The One True God: The Holy Trinity.
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.
https://trinitythetruth.github.io/ << Review and Confirm Proof Here.
I looked at this, and it seems like an exercise in the pseudoscience of numerology. I still find this nonsense interesting, as it can help us understand how people can be deceived by things like this.
For example, consider Maxwell’s four equations which describe the properties of electromagnetism.
With the understanding that I am oversimplifying very complex ideas, Maxwell was able to argue that electric fields and magnetic fields can be unified into electromagnetism because–in part–he found numerical similarities (like the speed of light in a vacuum) in the math that describes electrical fields and magnetic fields.
I could make similar points about Antoine Lavoisier, who is the founder of modern chemistry. He found numerical similarities that led him to the idea that chemistry is quantitative.
After making these points about Maxwell and Lavoisier . . . how do we avoid the claim of hipocrasy when considering these numerical “proofs” of God’s existence?
The difference is the process of data mining and cherry picking associated with this numerological proof of God’s existence. I could–just as easily–craft a similar (or even better) proof of Vishnu’s existence. I could even examine the numerology behind a patently imagined god like “The Flying Spaghetti Monster” and find numerological proofs that might even be better than the ones pointed out by the original poster.
Conversely, I can take a modern novel (maybe Stephen King’s The Stand), and cherry pick until I have even better numerological relationships than the ones found in the Bible.
This is why I’m actually sympathetic toward people who get taken in by the belief that numerology proves God’s existence, but it’s still bullshit.
[quote=“Kevin_Levites, post:2, topic:6169”]
This is why I’m actually sympathetic toward people who get taken in by the belief that numerology proves God’s existence, but it’s still bullshit.
[/quot
Yep. that old fraud Tertullian (an heretical Montanist) and his tortuous explanation for a triune god still takes in the easily deluded. Then they come up with such fatuous reasoning as this numerological circle jerk. Really?
Read Tertullian’s original reasoning there is NOTHING to justify!
Sheesh.
I think the whole subject “that math can prove god is real” is complete horse shit. I think Frances Crick proved Christians wrong when he designed the DNA model.
If you could just as easily craft a similar proof of Zeus which, I presume, could be easily refuted, then surely, you should be able to refute The Proof posted. We await you attempt.
It’s already been done. I have to poke around on the Internet to find a credible source, but I’ll post it here later.
In the meantime, one of the greatest mathematicians who ever lived (Euler) played a joke on an opponent during a debate about God’s existence, and gave an equation that “proves” God’s existence.
Please see below:
@kingiyk, I stopped looking at the document of proof you linked to pretty quickly when I saw: “The Earth is the Third of Nine Planets.”
There are not nine planets.
(And ~2k years ago, when a lot of your Bible was written, only seven were known.)
There. I fixed your post for you. You’re welcome.
This is just playing with numbers: not only it doesn’t prove that a god exists, it doesn’t prove anything at all.
Oh yippee, another lame numerological apologetic wankfest pretending to be “proof”.
The only concept established by this and all the other similar wankfests, is the desperation of mythology fanboys to conjure their imaginary cartoon magic man into existence using vacuous apologetic spells. This turgid faeces doesn’t deserve to be dignified by being placed on the same continental land mass as genuine mathematical proofs.
What an utter load of horseshite 
Take this statement, for example:
Man was designed to use the Base 10 Numeral System.
You have it bass-ackwards. We don’t have 10 fingers to be able to count in base 10, but we count with base 10 because we have 10 fingers.
Next, there is nothing magic about a base 10 system. In fact, there are other bases that are more practical, like 12 (since 12 is factored as 2*2*3, and therefore has 2, 3, 4, and 6 as divisors, as opposed to only 2 and 5 in base 10).
Further, other civilisations and cultures use other bases, like base 20 (e.g. pre-columbian Maya, Central Brazilian tribes, French via Gaulish), base 8 (in the Yuki language of California and the Pamean languages in Mexico; they count the spaces between the fingers rather than the fingers themselves), and base 60 (the Sumerians, in 3000 BCE, long before the abrahamitic goat herder religion was even invented). (Finger-counting - Wikipedia)
There are lots of other assertions in your alleged proof that do not hold up to scrutiny. So when you use those as the basis of your reasoning, you end up with garbage. Shit in, shit out.
What did you want to debate exactly, only this is a debate forum. If you believe there is a mathematical proof for a deity, then present it please, no links, and then perhaps you can explain why all physicists and mathematicians aren’t believers? Your claim seems dubious to me.
I am also not following that link to research your claim for you.
Oh and welcome to AR, now…
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or that a deity is seven possible?
You haven’t posted a mathematical proof?
Numerology is hokum, it is based on mysticism not mathematics, so lets hope you have more than that.
You do know the work has to have been peer reviewed before it is an accepted mathematical proof, don’t you?
What he said.
Outside of mathematics as a field (mathematics done for the sake of doing mathematics), mathematics is a tool to help reach conclusions based on a set of assumptions or a set of postulates. If the postulates are bullshit, the conclusions you draw from your mathematical calculations will also be bullshit, even if the the mathematics and logic used are impeccable. You assume significance of specific numbers for real life where there is none - all you have are your assertions. Like I said earlier: shit in, shit out.
Like attaching a supernatural significance to the random appearance of three 666’s, is only true if you first accept 666 has any supernatural significance. Or claiming “everything happens in threes”, then stop counting things you subjectively view as significant after three such events, as confirmation. You can make numbers do anything if you start with an innate bias.
It occurs to me that numerology does have an important, significant, real-world application.
Generations of optimists have lost their savings in places like Las Vegas, Monte Carlo, and Atlantic City thinking that numerical relationships gave them an inside track on the laws of statistics.
Bias always fail due to inconsistencies. The Proof presented consists of 7 segments of consistent ideas. You cannot deny that. It would take a faith stronger than mine to categorize it as coincidence.
Pull your head out of your arse.
You don’t have a “proof”, just the usual collection of cherry-picked juxtapositions specifically aimed at forcing a predetermined conclusion, as we see so often from mythology fanboys. That you think this farcical exercise constitutes a “mathematical proof” merely demonstrates the sad state of your education.
You have not presented any proof, why do you keep lying? You presented a link, if it contains a mathematical proof then post it please.
You have presented no proof, and I need deny nothing, these are your claims, that a mathematical proof exists, and that it evidences a deity. So far no proof has been presented, no citation to demonstrate such a proof has been peer reviewed, and no citations to show there is a consensus among mathematicians to support your second claim, that such a proof evidences a deity.
To be blunt, you’ve offered nothing but two bare claims, and a link to what others have already explained contains hokum mysticism called numerology. So any maths based on mysticism like numerology, would not be accepted as a mathematical proof. Maybe you should spend a few minutes and learn how proofs are validated. Then check to see if the mathematical and theological world are going nuts over a proof that evidences a deity. Rather than simply repeating claims you’ve found on the internet.
That is called a straw man fallacy, since no one has made any such claim. Though it is an objective fact of course that coincidences exist and are possible, but I am not aware of any objective evidence that any deity exists, or is even possible, and you seem to have ignored my question asking if you can demonstrate any?
A little blunt, but yes your point is well made. What’s more anyone can establish the fact that mathematical proofs must be peer reviewed, with some cursory research, so even a poor education is little excuse here.
It seems @kingiyk is peddling this nonsense on other atheist sites as well, he’d been banned from at least one for spamming.