Review and Confirm The Mathematical Proof of God

It makes more sense than anyone being dumb enough to believe that Romans 5:6 justifies superimposing a clock face on an depiction of a crucifixion.

Or to but it more simply the “Proof” is bullshit.And if you are going to cut-and-paste messages from another forum, try not to make it so obvious.

I didn’t find one. I didn’t need to, the post itself had the evidence. The last line is: Pretty obvious that wasn’t part of the actual post.

quote:

---

Like I told you earlier, Romans 5:6 justifies The Cross being fixed into a Time Clock.

---

Of course it doesn’t. Did you plagiarise that, too? Have you actually read Romans 5:6?

quote:

---

Put mind to task and examine the evidence. When done, you will be left with two choices: Proclaim this Proof to be The Truth or declare me The Greatest Mathematician The World has ever seen.

---

Or we could just laugh at your arrogance and false pride. You certainly haven’t any mathematical skill.Consider:

quote:

---

The Digital Root of any Trinity of Numbers united into an integer is either 3, 6 , or 9.

---

Or to put it another way, if you multiply a single digit number by three you get - a multiple of three! I suppose I could give you credit for being able to manage simple addition but then I remember that you plagiarised that part, so I honestly can’t even do that.No, you’re not a mathematician at all.

quote:

---

Then explain why the the digital root of all Trinity of Numbers is either 3, 6 or 9.

---

I’ve already done that. In more detail all multiples of 3 must have a digital root of 3, 6 or 9 so the triple numbers aren’t anything special. When you know that the digits of a multiple of 3 must themselves add up to a multiple of 3 the rest follows. And if you were actually any good at mathematics you could easily work that out - just as I can.Perhaps you would like to - finally - explain why this numerology is at all significant.Bear in mind that:1) it only works given a positional notation using base 10.2). It would NOT have worked in any system used by the people who wrote the Bible3) the notation it does work in was developed by Hindus. Not Christians.And also note that it is not a question of what God might do. The question is why we should think that God DID do it. Why can’t it just be a minor quirk of a system that has nothing to do with Judaism or Christianity? Because that is exactly what it seems to be.

quote:

---

The digits of a multiple of 2 must themselves add up to a multiple of 2
or the digits of a multiple of 4 must themselves add up to a multiple of 4

​

Going by your logic, those statements ought to be right.

---

What logic? I simply stated a well-known mathematical fact. That you choose to extrapolate it in a silly and erroneous direction is your error,
not mine.

quote:

---

But you know what, I will let you slide on that one

---

How generous that you won’t count your stupid lie. - which only shows your ignorance of mathematics - against me.

quote:

---

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.

---

So you admit that segment 1 is indefensible- since you choose to evade the issues I’ve raised. Can you be honest enough to actually say as much? If you can’t then I must insist that you go first and answer my questions.

quote:

---

You never miss an opportunity to evade tackling Segment one of the proof. And I commend your clever, consistent cunning craftsmanship. This was your first evasion of it.

---

Aside from the obvious contradiction that’s a lie. You are using evasion to avoid my criticisms of segment 1.

quote:

---

It remains that segment 1 of the proof remains undefeated and you are yet to make an attempt at disproving it.

---

Ah the usual “Christian” attempt to invert reality. In reality you run away from defending the plagiarised segment 1.

quote:

---

You refuse to accept it because you lack the proper critical thinking skill required. Here is how to think with critical skills with regards to this subject:

---

And yet another inversion of reality. Of course correct critical thinking reveals that the so-called “proof” is nothing of the sort.

quote:

---

Begin with the assumption that there is a God;
Proceed to accept the possibility that God has no interest of presenting an empirical evidence of His existence which is entirely within His prerogative.

---

If this were true then there would be such em-irical evidence, but it seems that there is not. Ergo correct critical thinking would tell you that one or both of those assumptions is false.

quote:

---

Your failure to have this perspective is the reason you set out in search of an empirical evidence of His existence and turn a blind eye to all overly glaring proofs.

---

So what you are saying is that “correct critical thinking” requires me to adopt a particular perspective - that is wrong. The problem of course is that I did not reject your so-called “proof” because I was expected empirical evidence I rejected it because it lacks the reasoning necessary to make it even an attempted proof.

quote:

---

You forget your place in the grand scheme of things; but I will remind you.
He is God and you are a creature and He could do however He pleases.

---

A little problem there. I’m arguing with you. Not God. Even though you expect me to worship you.

quote:

---

Now to get back to our discussion; make an attempt at disproving the first segment of The Proof while making reference to it.

---

Already done. I’m still waiting for your defence of it. Or should we take the fact that you’re a lying hypocrite as your defence - on top of your plagiarism and fraud (if it’s not too stupid to be called a fraud).

quote:

---

Regarding The Pride and Arrogance you spoke of, I have to be so in order to avoid getting "dogpiled"- to use your words

---

You really don’t. In fact that’s likely to encourage dogpiling. As well as more hostile responses than you would get if you tried honestly discussing the issues with appropriate humility. Admitting, for instance that you have very little knowledge of mathematics would be sensible. You wouldn’t get mathematical challenges you obviously aren’t up to.

quote:

---

This environment does not exactly provide the atmosphere for humility to flourish and you can see that from PaulK's very first response to this thread.
​

---

As I said above your arrogance and pride encourages that atmosphere. It certainly affected my responses. My first response, by the way, was Message 2
The claim to have a “proof” by the way is a very strong claim - and a very implausible one since philosophers have been trying for millennia and still not succeeded. Skepticism was more than warranted - even before we saw that the so called proof wasn’t even a rational argument.I think that what you mean is that you had to use arrogance and pride because you were running a massive bluff. Which was bound to backfire - as it did.

Your point does not help you. If we should include Pluto in the count we should also include Eris - and there may be more bodies yet to be discovered that qualify - so you would still be wrong to say that there are only 9 planets in our solar system. Indeed the whole point of demoting Pluto was to avoid including Eris or other similar bodies.Moreover the label “planet” is a matter of terminology, not objective fact. The International Astronomical Union does indeed have the authority to determine the terminology used by astronomers. You do not,

That’s what you’d expect from an LLM. Lots of the training data would be old enough to to talk about nine planets and what goes in is likely to come out.

If you were really the AntiChrist you’d come up with better lies. Go away you pathetic fake.

quote:

---

Would the Anti-Christ testify to The Truth? Would he lead others to do the same? Would he come along with The Book with The Seven Seals containing seven segments covering all Truth?

---

Would he falsely claim to be doing so, like you? Possibly, but he’d at least try to make it believable. And I doubt that he’d stoop to obvious plagiarism as you have.

quote:

---

This is A.I.'s review of The Proof, for you and those attaching false accusations of plagiarism like the anti-Christ that you are:

---

I note that you couldn’t make ChatGPT say that it was anything more than theology. Not that making an LLM say something is proof of anything. And the plagiarism is proven: Message 65

quote:

---

This is The Book with The Seven Seals and I Am that I Am.

---

It is not and what you are is a fraud. And an obvious one at that.

Sorry, no. It isn’t going to happen. You aren’t the AntiChrist.