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

Debate Room
82

If it is the will of God to choose The English Language as the medium to unite the entire human race, so it will be.

You succinctly state “the modern english”, which lets me know that you have done some research and discovered that the ampersand (&) was once the 27th alphabet but cleverly chose to withhold that information. I say to you, however, that the “&” is the 27th letter and all creations of Man are inspirations and Man is but a vessel.

Genesis 11:9: because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth

83

Perhaps, it is you who needs to redefine your definition of evidenced and unevidenced claims. You choose to be obstinate in your disbelief until you see Omnipotent Power of God with your eyes. But you ought to ask yourself why you think yourself worthy enough to extract such a dramatic reaction from The Almighty. Examine The evidence presented here while having a conscious awareness of who you are in the grand scheme of things and that should suffice.

84

Why not the omnipotent power of Odin, Vishnu, or Zeus? Why not the omnipotent power of Allah? Or Buddha?

I think you’re in the wrong forum.

I found a numerology forum for you that might be more receptive to your claims.

Please see below:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.thetarotforum.com/forums/topic/9490-numerology-tarot/&ved=2ahUKEwi45IupjP2KAxUCmbAFHXcPKOYQFnoECBYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1MAVCmfqHUEUp2TxGmJpVR

I hope this helps.

85

You have yet to demonstrate any objective evidence that any deity exists, or is even possible.

Since I have offered no definition of evidence, only pointed out that you reeled off biblical claims, without even the pretence of presenting anything beyond the claims, and tried to pass them off as part of a “proof”, this is a rather transparent lie.

FWIW, you don’t get to tell others whether what you have presented is of any worth as evidence to them, you sought us out to peddle your superstitious wares after all, so we get to decide if we find it at all compelling, and thus far this is poor apologetics indeed.

Another straw man lie, you’re projecting again, why don’t you focus on your many unevidenced claims, instead of lying and making up claims to falsely assign to me. This is a straw man fallacy of course, so it seems you’ve gone from unevidenced claims, to irrational ones. What is it with bat shit crazy apologetics, and random fucking capital letters as well? Omnipotent, and power are not proper nouns champ.

Straw man fallacy again, since I made no such claim, and I invite you to see why assigning such a claim to an atheist, is not just irrational, but spectacularly stupid. Do you harbour expectations of mermaids and unicorns?

If and when you present any, I will do just that. In the meantime, why not address my explicit objections to what you have posted, this is a debate forum after all.

Otherwise it is abundantly clear you’re holding an empty bag, else you’d have at least tried to evidence your claims, but all you have is deflection and straw man fallacies.

Now try again champ, can you support any of those claims with anything approaching objective evidence? Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or that any deity is even possible?

Note the first step is a simple yes or no, after that if the answer is yes, you will need to do this, no cryptic unevidenced biblical claims, no arbitrary numbers assigned them.

If you can’t manage that much, try converting that shambles in your post that I quoted from, into a simple syllogism, and we’ll walk you through where it fails, and why.

Unevidenced claim…I don’t give a fuck what the bible claims, why would I, if it is unsupported by any objective evidence, and you can’t even be bothered to try and evidence those claims?

Unevidenced claim…preaching is not allowed, you might want to find a pulpit or start a blog, if all you want to do is preach your unevidenced beliefs.

1 Like
86

Firstly, please demonstrate that this mythological entity from the bronze age exists. Secondly, please show that this (as yet) unproven god is the reason English is a de facto lingua franca, as opposed to English imperialism from the 16th century up to post WW2, and later also US cultural imperialism. An elusive magical ghost entity from the religion of a desert-dwelling bronze age tribe versus verifiable historical evidence in modern age. Hmm, what to choose, what to choose? :thinking:

That being said, the English alphabet has changed over time, and thus also the number of letters. If you want to include & as a letter, why not also include the letters ash (æ), eth (ð), thorn (þ), and wynn (ƿ), or even runes? Why pick only one of the characters that have gone out of fashion as letters, and not the others? Oh, I know – you choose to include & as a 27th letter because you desperately need the number 27, and so you cherrypick a particular representation from a particular time period, while ignoring the others, and ignoring all other languages. You ignore e.g. the original languages of which that book of fairytales of yours was written in – Greek and Aramaic, and assert that English is somehow moar magicul and holier than these.

The bible is the claim, not the proof. Please put forth evidence that the Babel fable is anything but myth.

3 Likes
87

@kingiyk, a very simple question: what is your goal by posting here?

2 Likes
88

You should read On Beyond Zebra! by Dr. Seuss.

17371364857206668641482838608527
17371364857206668641482838608527191×264 16.1 KB

It gives us an outline of all the letters beyond letter ‘z’ like “Yuzz.”

1 Like
89

A word of advice: It’s not a good idea to cite the bible when talking to atheists. Not only don’t they think the book has much in it in the way of value (They think the same thing for the koran and the bhagavad gita), but citing it makes you appear not to have any original thoughts of your own - not a good look.

Ampersand? Had to look it up, but it derives from Latin and literally means “and”. None of the other letters have a meaning (I’ll argue about “I”.). They all represent a sound (or several sounds). Plus, the ampersand doesn’t have a sound assigned to it.
I suspect it is included just so you can claim 27 letters, just like you claimed 9 numbers and not 10.

Evidenced claim vs unevidenced claim? What’s important is whether the claim is convincing and yours are not - evidenced or not.

Overall you are doing very poorly posting here. I suggest you retreat and spend a little more time on your arguments.

1 Like
90

Preaching. Unevidenced claim.

Again preaching and proselytizing.

Oh look! He’s still quoting scripture and preaching.

None of that is evidence. It’s evidence of you trying to sell your religion on an Atheist forum. Sorry, your arguments still aren’t compelling.

2 Likes
91

The proof is composed of seven distinct segments, each contributing uniquely and not wholly reliant upon one another. Let us assume you pick an objection to 2-7.
What objection do you pick with 1? See proof.

92

The only proof you can eke out of the whole thing is just the confirmation that the arithmetic relations you list are, in fact, mathematically correct. That is, that you have done some very simple elementary school calculations correctly. Congratulations. Now go sign up for mathematics courses at a university and learn some real mathematics. And then some physics courses to learn how you actually establish mathematical descriptions and connections in nature. Other than that, you are just presenting arithmetic wankery that only proves your delusion.

Other than that, my objection is your base principle, namely the assumption that numerology (the study of the supposed occult influence of numbers on human affairs) is valid and has anything to say about the factual existence of any deity. That’s just an assertion you make. The very first thing you have to establish is that there is, in fact, such a connection. And no, references to the bibble are not valid (the bibble is, after all, the claim, not the proof).

Edit: grammar+spelling corrections, and a couple of minor other corrections

2 Likes
93

Just in case it isn’t clear – what I mean by “that there is, in fact, such a connection” is empirical evidence for this, i.e. actual evidence and data gathered through real-world experiments, not just wankery through wishful thinking and assertions.

1 Like
94

The three first numbers of the Trinity of numbers are 111, 222 and 333; these numbers summed toghether have a result of 111+222+333=666.
In conclusion: God is Satan.

3 Likes
95

If is this all you have to say regarding the first segment of the proof…then it will be noted that you were unable to find a flaw that disproves it. The idea that numbers cannot reveal God is also a myopic one, rendering you a close-minded individual.
Still, I ask those out there…what objection do you have to the first segment of the proof.

96

Your biggest flaw is that you take statements from the bible, do some elementary school arithmetic, and then claim that this proves the bible/god. This does not in any way connect it with the real world. You use the bible to “prove” the bible. It’s a circle argument, a circle jerk. The only thing you have “proven” is that you can connect some bible quotations with others via numbers. There is no connection established with the real world, so it has absolutely no impact on the existence or non-existence of your god or the validity of the bible. So your “proof” is worthless, no matter how rigid or valid your internal logic is. If you cannot connect it with the real world, it’s nonsense.

Validity of the bible is established through rigid historical research, archeology, and other empirical sciences that can connect it to the real world, i.e. empirical evidence. Proof of a god can likewise only happen through objective empirical evidence.

Edit: The arithmetical exercises you do can also be done with any other book, like the Torah, the Quran, Moby Dick, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Lord of the Rings, etc. Arithmetic wankery proves nothing.

1 Like
97

It contains a begging the question fallacy, since it assumes your conclusion (the existence of a deity) in your opening premise. No logical proof can contain or use a known logical fallacy.

Here:

You are assuming your conclusion in your very first premise.

2 Likes
98

Correct. And this is also essentially where any empirical connection to the real world is missing.

3 Likes
99

I’d bet my house @kingiyk refuses to even acknowledge his logical fallacy, he hasn’t so far.

Why is it do you imagine, that presuppositionalists have such a hard time, understanding that not everyone is a presuppositionalist? Then ironically label others as closed minded, as if they really don’t know what the phrase means.

As for the hokum of numerology…

“There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that numerology predictions are accurate. Numerology is a pseudoscience, which means that it is based on unfalsifiable beliefs and theories. There is no way to prove or disprove numerology predictions, so they ultimately boil down to faith.”

That sums it up pretty accurately, hokum pseudoscience. You cannot base mathematical or logical proofs on unfalsifiable beliefs, nor on logical fallacies.

2 Likes
100

For a logical proof to be sound, both the premises and the conclusion must be true. An argument is sound only if it is valid and all of its premises are true.

“Assuming your conclusion in your opening premise is a begging the question fallacy. This fallacy occurs when you assume the truth of the conclusion you are trying to prove.”

CITATION

Quod erat demonstrandum…

1 Like
101

I repeat…@kingiyk, what is your goal for posting here?

1 Like