The reason for the use of digital root was well stated.
The Triune God is an Ultimate Unit existing in eternity as Three distinct Entities in The Name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.
When all three entities are united to become an ultimate unit by deriving the digital root of the sum and the digital root of the unifying Godhead\God is derived, the result is:
Digital Root is the derivation of an ultimate unit(a single digit). The objective of this proof was to illustrate how Triune God is an ultimate unit. It achieved that wonderfully,
Also, to claim that this proof does not align with real life experience as Sheldon claims, is to deny the Roman Empire ever existed. Jesus is intertwined with the Roman Republic. To deny one is to deny the other. It is on record that He was crucified. This proof reveals why the Cross was the chosen method of God to reveal The Truth as it was the fixing of The Cross into the time clock that made The Proof possible.
It should also be noted that all objections raised so far are just mere speculations. A proof, if wrong, should be able to be disproved with or without speculations. So far, none here has been able to disprove without speculations.
Once again, you donât have a âproofâ, you have made up shit pretending to be a proof.
Actual mathematicians would point and laugh at your excremental drivel. Take this garbage to a venue that is more easily fooled by your snake oil and cup shuffling.
Which was a dogma set by Tertullian (who was an âhereticalâ Montanist) and although the Trinity became accepted as the Roman Church dogma, it was not accepted by many of the other cults and sects that abounded in the 3rd-9th centuries. It is still not accepted by many âchristianâ sects/cults today from many language and ethnic traditions.
Thatâs a false equivalence fallacy, since we have more than sufficient objective evidence that the Roman Empire existed, we have scant objective evidence that the Jesus character in the gospel myths existed at all, and none that he was anything but human if he did.
So that is three separate known common logical fallacies youâve invoked, in case you donât understand already, no one is likely to accept claims, beliefs, or arguments that are so obviously irrational.
No it is not on record, not one word was written until decades after the events they purport to describe, and crucifixion was a very common form of punishment for political prisoners under the Roman Empire at that time, so this is about as meaningless a claim as one can imagine.
No it doesnât, at all, since you canât demonstrate any objective evidence that any deity exists, or is even possible.
Thatâs a lie, as the logical fallacies you have used have been very specifically explained, but even were it true, it doesnât make your subjective and irrational claims true, since claiming something to be true or false because of the lack of a contrary explanation or evidence is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
It was falsified when you used a begging the question fallacy, by assuming the conclusion of your argument in your premise(s), no logical proof can use or contain a known logical fallacy. So thatâs another lie.
Thatâs a lie.
It seems youâre not here for honest debate, quelle surprise, and all you have left now is lies and repetition. Itâs hard to imagine you really believe anyone will be swayed by this sort of irrational sophistry, rather inferring that you are trolling now.
I asked him at the very start, to explain why there wasnât a broad consensus among mathematicians for this âproofâ of a deity, of course he has not had the integrity to even answer, and we can all see why. The notion such a proof would break here is risible of course.
An irrational unevidenced nonsense, good darts sir.
One more time then, as this seems not be sinking in:
Numerology is not mathematics, it is a mystical belief system. That the hokum claims involve mathematics doesnât change this. No logical proof, can use or contain a known logic fallacy.
To be absolutely clear here, @kingiyk has used the hokum mysticism of numerology, and an argument where he assumed his conclusion (the existence of a deity) in his opening premise, which is a begging the question fallacy. So he has not produced a sound (note the word) logical proof, nor a mathematical proof.
He is also now trying to assert that his claims are valid (note the word) as they have not been falsified, this is of course an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
So thatâs 124 posts, and nothing to justify the hubris in the title of the thread, though to be fair, it was always risible to imagine that such proof would break here, while the entire mathematical and theological world remained unaware of it.
@kingiyk, it obvious that no one here (and likely none on any other sites on which you post) will be able to change your mind. Despite the use of logic, a grounding in reality, and what, imo, has been enormous patience by other posters, youâve dashed right by what folks have said with no apparent review of it. Youâve not responded to the specifics of whatâs been provided as a counter to your OP, rather youâve simply iterated and reiterated your initial statements.
Therefore, I find it reasonable to conclude that you are here to preach your message instead of debate it. And sadly, I think you might never figure out how, well, silly it sounds.
Other folks here may find benefit in continuing with you so your account will remain open for now. However, Iâd suggest you start responding to the specific arguments and direct questions people are making about your proof since preaching and proselytizing are not allowed here.
I belief I have responded to all questions raised but if you think otherwise, make a compilation of all unanswered questions and I will respond to them.
The association fallacy is a formal logical fallacy that asserts that properties of one thing must also be properties of another thing if both things belong to the same group. For example, a fallacious arguer may claim that âbears are animals, and bears are dangerous; therefore your dog, which is also an animal, must be dangerous.â
Here, you have a property of the digital root concerning the numbers 3, 6, and 9. At the same time, you associate the same numbers with your imaginary friend, making them have a common property (3, 6, and 9). Thus, you make the association that one is represented by the other, without any other evidence than your assertion. Merely wishing this to be true does not cut it. Thus, you have used a formal logical fallacy in your premises. The rest of your faery tale âproofâ is therefore meaningless arithmetic wankery.
You can start by addressing each logical fallacy that has been pointed out. Please address them with specifics, detailing why each is not, iyo, a logical fallacy. Your responses need to avoid mere iteration of the argument in which others have found said fallacies.
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.
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.
You keep insisting you have a mathematical proof, but numerology is a faith based belief in mysticism.
You have failed to answer why, if such a proof existed, it is not supported by a broad consensus among mathematicians and theologians?
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.
How long are we going to wait, before labelling this another falsehood? 72 hours seems reasonable to me, what are everyone elseâs thoughts? I mean we all know heâs way out of his depth, so chances are heâs either never coming back, or when he does itâll be the same evasion and sophistry.
Or has past experience made me too cynical? Well not to worry, if I am wrong, I get saved right, that has to be worth a 3 day wait? Though I am left wondering why he wouldnât already have addressed his many errors in reasoning, hey, maybe I am cynical, but can you blame me.
" 1&2). 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."
If you decline to entertain a proof of a deity until such a deity is presented beyond an ounce of doubt in physical or tangible form; you risk missing out on a true mathematical proof of such deity when presented to you. Also, you assume that such a deity owes you an explanation. Entertain the notion that he has no desire in presenting you with a physical evidence of his existence (that is what you ask for and it is the only evidence you think could change your mind.). Until you have an absolute answer for the origin of life(One that is supported by a consensus amongst all scientists), until scientists eradicate death, no one has earned the right to be an atheist. There is a God who is worshiped by billions of people, who claims to be the only one who can give eternal life and that God proved it by resurrecting from death. Until you and the atheists scientists find a way to give the human race eternal life, you all are under the law of that God that claims to be in possession of eternal life and proved it by resurrecting.
3.) You keep insisting you have a mathematical proof, but numerology is a faith based belief in mysticism.
I do not ascribe to your traditional definition of ânumerologyâ. The First page of the proof succinctly states that this Proof was enabled through Mathematics, the language of the universe.
I never asserted that your definition of ânumerologyâ ought to be accepted as an absolute truth. Instead, I posited that it should not be dismissed as trivial or devoid of significance. Only the one who truly grasps the essence of Truth holds the privilegeâand the audacityâto dismiss all conjectures about it with justified certainty.
You have failed to answer why, if such a proof existed, it is not supported by a broad consensus among mathematicians and theologians?
Count yourself lucky to be amongst the first to set eyes upon this Proof. For in due time, it shall be preached as a testimony to all nations.
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.
You approach this topic only with the tools you acquired in philosophy 101. Realise you have not demonstrated a valid way to disprove how The Proof revealed the unification of the Three Members of The Trinity as a singular God. All you have said so far in this thread could be copied and pasted in any thread in support of the existence of God and it would fit right in. Make your critique unique to section1 of The Proof and we shall have a resounding conversation.
Oh ffs, I epxlained how to use the fucking quote function, dear oh dear. Now, itâs pretty fucking simple, you either can offer some objective evidence that a deity exist or is possible, or you cannot.
Which is it? Itâs a yes no questionâŠyou have failed to answer yet again. We will address any objective evidence you claim to have when you finally have the integrity to answer that question.
You donât have a logical proof, as it contained known logical fallacies that you refuse to acknowledge let alone address, like the begging the question fallacy in your opening premise.
It is simply comedy gold that you think this is a valid proof, but by all means try and get it published.
No I fucking donât stop using straw men to tell me what I think, and learn what atheism means, this claim is beyond idiotic.
Please learn what atheism means, a cursory read of a dictionary will disavow you of this nonsensically stupid oxymoron. I donât believe any deity or deities exist, so how the fuck do you imagine I hold opinions about what they should or should not do ffs? You have again completely ignored my questionâŠ
I have made no claims whatsoever about the origins of life, and your argument here is the very definition an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy yet again, this has been explained, and you simply go on repeating your fallacious claims and ignoring the responses.
Which has nothing at all to do with my question, and is of course just a bare appeal to numbers, or an argumentum ad populum fallacy, so yet another fallacious claim, and another question goes unanswered again by you.
Itâs not mine, and I couldnât give a flying fuck what you ascribe to, it is a simple statement of fact that numerology is unsupported by any scientific evidence, and is a faith based belief in mysticism, all one need do is Google it ffs, thus it cannot form part of a logical or mathematical proof, cry me a riverâŠ
It contained a begging the question fallacy in your opening premise, as has been explained, no mathematical or logical proof can use or contain a known logical fallacy. @CyberLN just explained that blindly repeating your fallacious claim is not debate.
Another question ignored, your âproofâ is utter garbage, and the reason youâre peddling it here is because you thought you could bluff the poor uneducated heathens, one more thing youâre very wrong about. You clearly donât have even the most basic understanding of logic or mathematical proofs, or how they are validated, again comedy gold, and I donât know about anyone else but I am done being polite about your asinine posts.
The sheer comedy gold of that so called âproofâ, is only matched by the idea it is breaking here first, and has evaded the entire mathematical and theological world for millennia. Fuck me, but this is simply hilarious, but you have again failed to even try and answer my question.
Now youâre onto an ad hominem fallacy, while failing yet again to address your earlier begging the question fallacy.
You said youâd answer, and you lied, you have not addressed a single question I asked with anything approaching integrity, and I donât care to be preached at, least of all by liars, who have no grasp of the topics being discussed, and are too closed minded and dishonest to acknowledge their (your) errors in reasoning.
Iâm posting these again, as anyone can see all he did was repeat his previous fallacious claims, and add some new ones, but made no attempt to honestly answer the questions.
1, Is a yes or no question, I will however accept a demonstration of some objective evidence (not subjective beliefs or questions).
2. Address your begging the question fallacy, nothing else! NB no proof can use or contain a known logical fallacy.
3. I have no interest in your subjective opinions about numerology, deal with the facts only. If you donât care that your proof is based on unevidenced pseudo scientific mysticism like numerology, then say that plainly, without evasion or preamble.
4. Address the fact of the question, I have zero interest in your unevidenced hyperbole about what you think your irrational and comical argument will achieve in the future.
5. Again, address this argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and only that.
is intertwined with the Roman Republic. To deny one is to deny the other. It is on record that He was crucified. This proof reveals why the Cross was the chosen method of God to reveal The Truth as it was the fixing of The Cross into the time clock that made The Proof possible.
