The Truth: The Mathematical Proof of God, The Holy Trinity

Debate Room
183

Oh that was ridiculous from the first, the hyperbole in the thread title left little hope we were dealing with an open minded, rational person. This didn’t need a thread, just a cursory look at any global news network would demonstrate the claim is nonsense.

Nothing on the Catholic Herald’s website, they do have a nauseous photo of the giant oompa loompa recently elected President. Apparently US Bishops have criticised his executive orders, talk about slamming the stable door after the horse has bolted.

184

Has anyone here denied a deity exists? Show me where.

2 Likes
185

Good article here, debunking numerology.

186

The epistemological difference between disbelieving a claim, and making a contrary claim, is way beyond him. From the number of times we see religious apologists make this error, I am guessing it is something they are taught, and just one more thing they accept uncritically.

Of course atheism is not a claim, it is solely the lack or absence of belief, and all @kingiyk has produced, is a tautology that uses a straw man.

1 Like
187

Probably a version of false dichtomy fallacy. Or, for the most brain washed religionists, a phallusy.

3 Likes
188

Him. He denies all the other gods when he goes on about his lol :rofl:

3 Likes
189

I shall present a sequence of closed-ended questions, each designed to elicit a simple Yes or No response. No further elaboration is necessary, as every question or statement can be addressed solely in this manner. Any attempt to provide an explanation for a given question or statement will be automatically interpreted as a Yes. Participants’ responses should then be cross-referenced with the Proof to ensure their alignment with truthfulness.

Answers should be given like so:

  1. Yes

2.No.

etc.

Ø Is the doctrine of the Trinity in Christian theology defined as the belief that God exists as one divine essence in three distinct persons: The Father, The Son (Jesus Christ), and The Holy Spirit?

Ø Does the proof suggest that aligning the crucifixion cross within the framework of a time clock serves as the key to unveiling the ultimate Truth which The Proof considers to be The Holy Trinity?

Ø Did this alignment of The Cross into a Time Clock correspond with a previous demonstration of a Trinity of Numbers with a recurring sequence of 3, 6, 9?

Ø Upon fixing the cross into the time clock, did the coordinates reveal how the three members of The Trinity are united as a singular God?

Ø In Christian Theology, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit exist as distinct yet coequal hypostases within the divine essence, such that their individual distinctions neither augment nor diminish the totality of God’s being, but rather subsist harmoniously within the indivisible unity of the Godhead.

Ø Could the statement above be represented with the following equation:

God + The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = God?

Ø Was such an equation derived through a series of consistent and coherent ideas in The Proof?

Ø Does the equation transcend the established principles of mathematics?

Ø Just as The concept of The Trinity has confounded the minds of Men, does the stated equation share the same characteristics?

190

Those are ridiculous terms, so I’m not going to play that stupid game.

Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes/No.

(Any attempt at explanation or clarification will be automatically interpreted as a No)

4 Likes
191

You’re not in a position to dictate terms of discourse to anyone. You’ve yet to demonstrate basic discoursive competence. Get back in your crate.

2 Likes
192

…but no answers, and no objective evidence of any kind, quelle surprise…

Go fuck yourself, you question dodging cunt… :innocent:

I lost interest there, unless you can demonstrate any objective evidence your magic sky daddy exists, or is even possible?

look at the fucking thread title champ…

Good darts, he seems to think he can bluff and lie, he has yet to explain what he hopes to gain from such ignorant mendacity, and of course he never will, obviously.

I actually have my doubts this guy (I suspect from his hyperbole a teenage boy) is even a theist.

It’s not an equation.

It’s not a proof, and the ideas are not coherent, they’re a mishmash of unevidenced superstitious nonsense.

No, it simply fails, mathematically and logically.

No, it is simply superstitious nonsense.

1 Like
193

No…

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Your turn…

  1. You have repeatedly failed to answer when asked, whether you can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or that a deity is even possible.
  2. You used a begging the question fallacy, where you assumed your conclusion (the existence of a deity) in your opening premise, and never addressed this fallacious error in your reasoning. NB this was also quoted for you, with a link to your post.
  3. You keep insisting you have a mathematical proof, but numerology is a faith based belief in mysticism.
  4. You have failed to answer why, if such a proof existed, it is not supported by a broad consensus among mathematicians and theologians?
  5. You insisted your argument was valid even though you failed to address your logical fallacy above, which was a lie, and then because it had not been falsified, which is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and again failed to ever address this error in your reasoning, like all the others.
2 Likes
194

I’d love to dialog with Kingiyk further, but I really need to organize my sock drawer.

3 Likes
195

That was a ten-pointer, Kevin! :rofl:

1 Like
196

Heh, I’m busy dissecting moth genitalia today, wich is likely to be far more productive than trying to inject reason into a mythology fanboy. Though Inserting a kilo of blancmange into a hamster’s rectal passage with the pointy end of a waap is likely to be more productive …

1 Like
197

The instructions were stated.

1 Like
198

You might want to add that wishful thinking is not evidence.

Oh, and by the way - it is not necessary to disprove the entirety of what you promote as a proof. It is enough to show that the conclusion cannot be valid or trusted, due to formal or informal errors. To be valid, a proof will need the following parts:

  1. assumptions and premises. If the proof tries to say something about the real physical and observed world, the premises must reflect empirically observed facts.
  2. correct logical deductions and/or mathematical calculations with relevant mathematics.
  3. a conclusion, which rests on items 1. and 2. being correct and correctly performed.

As for item 1: you have used both formal and informal logical fallacies, e.g. by assuming the conclusion, and an association fallacy (if A and B share property P, then A and B will also share other properties Q, R, S, …). Also, your premises fail to connect with empirically observed objective reality (“ground truth”). A correspondence (whether real or imagined) with numbers do not say anything about empirically observed facts or quantities. Thus, the premises (and by extension your conclusion) have little or nothing to do with reality.

As for item 2: you pretend to do mathematics, but you’re not. You’re flagrantly ignoring and abusing notation and mathematical rules, e.g. your construction A+B=A, where B≠0. Besides, you haven’t shown that your tool of choice (digit root) is a relevant mathematical quality to adequately describe the qualities of your deity (from item 1, you justify the choice of digit roots by an association fallacy, which makes it invalid).

Items 1 and 2 are therefore not in place, so item 3 (your conclusion) cannot be valid. Thus, your “proof” has fallen. Its conclusion cannot be valid.

In short, it is not necessary to disprove your conclusion or your “proof” as such, it is enough to show that your proof is faulty by observing that your premises are erroneous and that you have serious errors in your deduction.

2 Likes
199

Several of your questions are false dichotomies (i.e. fallacies), and the premises were rigged such that you disallowed pointing out the fallacies. Thus, these questions give potential responders the choice between two incorrect answers, and you dishonestly disallow giving the correct answer.

3 Likes
200

Don’t forget to arrange them in order of the magic number 3. And ffs don’t have three lots of 6 socks, disaster.

1 Like
201

And followed, time to fold up your suitcase up, and take your snake oil on the road again?

1 Like
202

Why should people be forced to only use the references you want? Especially when said references are nothing but simple mathematical calculations who have been arbitrarily assigned a mystical meaning without a single shred of empirical or at least theoretical level.
Oh, just one more thing: the Trinity is God=Father,Son and Holy Spirit; not God+Father+Son+Holy Spirit.

4 Likes