Review and Confirm The Mathematical Proof of God

"The bible was written almost entirely in Hebrew. Hebrew has 22 letters. "The Bible was written in Hebrew, therefore, God must make all revelations in Hebrew. That is your argument.Your agree it is flawed and so do I. If God decides to reveal The Truth in English, that is his prerogative.

Good point. But the New Testament was originally written in Greek, which has 24 letters, nicely divisible by 3, but the result is 8, which isn't one of KING IYK's magic numbers. Maybe the Greek alphabet had a different number of letters back then? KING?--Percy

Tangle said nothing of the kind. The only one claiming God has chosen a particular language in which to reveal his Truth, and that it is English, is you, just one of the many claims that either you've been unable to support or that makes no sense.Maybe you should switch to Spanish. It actually does have 27 letters (the extra letter is ñ).--Percy

Nope. My argument is that the bible was originally written in Hebrew which has 22 letters. So your argument of rules of 3 doesn't work.The New Testament was written in Greek which has 24 letters. 24 is divisible by 3 but inconveniently gets you 8 not 9.The bible has since been translated into many languages but I guess it got used by the Western market mostly in Latin.Now that IS interesting because latin has 23 letters which is prime, so you really do get to THE ONE. Yeh, well that's a bit tricky too. How many letters English has depends when and where you prefer to count - between 24 and 27 (27 between 1150 and 1500) - but it standardised in the 17th century at 26.So really, you're totally stuffed.

The recurring sequence 3 6 9 is magnificent for its representation of
The Truth: THE HOLY TRINITY !!! 3 3 3
​--
Yes. Religious numerology. We know. Somehow this sequence 3 6 9 is repackaged as 3 3 3 which you chose to emotionally represent as your god. No divinity creation evident or necessary. As human constructs meant to represent quantities, numbers carry only what human emotion and action our fantasies impart to them.Then explain why the the digital root of all Trinity of Numbers is either 3, 6 or 9. Refrain from saying that's just how math works.---
The Holy Trinity is assigned the numerical value
3 3 3 and Satan is self-assigned 6 6 6.[Revelation 13:18]
When you incorporate Isaiah 14:14 [which states:
​
Your scriptural references mean nothing. They carry no force of legitimate evidence. They are all statements of faith without any demonstrable reality to support their existence. The bible disappears in a puff of logic.Your mind, if brilliant, would inquire why the number of The devil is 666.
The Holy Trinity is assigned the numerical value 3 3 3 and Satan is self-assigned
6 6 6.[Revelation 13:18] When you incorporate Isaiah 14:14 [which states: “I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High”] into this wonder, the reason for Satan’s choice of 6 6 6 becomes overly glaring: He aims to be like God.---When The Cross is fixed into a Time Clock, the co-ordinates are 3 6 9 and 12.
​
That depends on what graphics program you use. You can juxtapose any symbols of your personal emotional meanings with other symbols to produce enhanced emotional feelings. Those feelings are personal emotional and cannot be shown to represent reality.
​
Your clock face specially cropped over a specific image of torture and murder is your personal choice. It does not add any legitimate data to the issue. It is just another graphic that meets your specific emotional need.The decision to fix the Cross into a time clock was not one sprung out of thin air.
Romans 5:6 provides the justification for this.You should ponder your mind with how 333 was derived yet again from this procedure.
---
The Earth is the Third of Nine Planets.
​
The Resulting Numbers are 3 & 9.
​
9 is comprised of three 3s: 3 3 3
​
No. There are only 8 planets. Planets are a human conception with an agreed upon consensus definition.
​
The Resulting Numbers are 3 & 8. 8 is comprised of: 3 3 2. No trinity shown. No gods shown.Pluto's demotion from planet status was decided by a vote among astronomers at the 2006 International Astronomical Union (IAU) General Assembly in Prague.Only about 424 astronomers (out of thousands or millions worldwide) participated in the final vote. If a significant fraction of the sample size of voters present at the occasion and venue were in favor of Pluto being a Planet, then it would be 9 planets.
---The Bible is comprised of The New Testament and The Old Testament.
​
Again, your bible shows nothing but the emotional thoughts and statements of faith of an ancient tribe of despots. It evidences nothing but the violent bloodlust of its warlords.---
You should be marveled by how
The New Testament : 27 (3 3 3)
The Old Testament : 39 (3 and 9; 9 is comprised of three 3s; 333)I do not force you to accept this Truth. But I implore you to calculate the probability of this sequence (3 3 3) occurring over and over a number of 9 times.

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.

To quote text from another message you can use either the [qs] or [quote] dBCode.If you type this: Then it will look like this: And if you type this: Then it will look like this:

quote:

---

This is the quoted text.

---

--Percy

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 4Going by your logic, those statements ought to be right.But you know what, I will let you slide on that one.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 one?

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.

Of course “that’s just how math works” is the reason it works. I cannot help you if you cannot comprehend how/why 2+2=4 and 2+2+2+2=8. That is the way math works.You consciously chose the set of real numbers divisible by three as your base in defining your flavor of god. To your cult 3 is sacred and, as religionists are apt to do, you define values and meanings of values to fit your fantasy. There is another sect, the cult of programmers, where binary rules. Where 256, 512, 1024 are the sacred multiples. Though this priesthood hasn’t adopted a consensus god, Alan Turing comes close.You chose this fictitious Trinity of Numbers because it fit your fantasy's emotional need. There appears nothing divine about it. Just numbers being manipulated for religious purposes rather than logical ones. The reason is simply because you define it as such. There appears to be nothing in this universe that forced such an association. Except for the pretty petal shape you can get when you tattoo 666 on your forehead there appears to be no motive force behind the number or its attached devil. They have never been shown to do anything. No moving matter here to there. No manipulation of energy. Your devil, like your god, appears to be fictitious. Just another denizen of your fantasy world. And when you write 666 on a sheet of paper it just sits there doing nothing. It’s worthless.Your devil appears to be fiction. Your number, then, is just a number. And everyone knew the question was scheduled. Those interested had ways to voice their opinions. The conference, charged by the world scientific community to decide such things (that’s why the organization exists) decided. 8 planets.That is the present scientific consensus. That is the way we reach a consensus. Whether you and your religious needs accept this is of no account. Humanity has a position, a definition, and your religious needs will not change this. As of now, 8 planets. You have no TRVTH to force. You cannot show your number sequences to have any motive force at all. They mean nothing except to your imagination. They do nothing except make your emotions dance.

That's your extrapolation, not PaulK's. It has been stated at least several times, I think including by PaulK, that this is a property unique to multiples of 3, not of other numbers. From the discoverer of the Proof of God we would expect a little more Christian goodness and a little less breaking of the 9th Commandment. You also seem to have large elements of the sins of pride and arrogance. You've convinced no one here that what you've presented is any kind of proof of anything, let alone God. I do think you've proven to many people what type of person you are.Let's see if any of the Christians here accept your Proof of God. K.Rose, dad3, marc9000, Candle3, mike the wiz, Dredge, what say you?We likely won't hear from any of them. Christians here often complain of being dogpiled, and they're right. It's because each Christian's point of view is unique to them and they are alone in their view, while those arguing from evidence are all of the same view because the evidence is the same for all of them.--Percy

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. It remains that segment 1 of the proof remains undefeated and you are yet to make an attempt at disproving it.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: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.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.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.Now to get back to our discussion; make an attempt at disproving the first segment of The Proof while making reference to it.Side Note: This Proof became empirical when the Cross was fixed into the time clock (The segment you are to critique).

Regarding The Pride and Arrogance you spoke of, I have to be so in order to avoid getting "dogpiled"- to use your words 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.Anyways, to get to the topic, your critique of segment one in the proof is vague as always.By fixing the cross into the time clock, I illustrated howGod + The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = Godand The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit are not equal to zero.Three has been united by One.You have provided no critique for this. Only mumbo jumbos

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).

Does advancing Christianity require behaving unChristianly? PaulK isn't the Christian in this discussion. I haven't examined your proof and don't know what "segment one" is. I saw it was numerology and that was enough. Maybe you'd find more fertile ground promoting your Proof of God to Christians. I don't think it's going anywhere here. I'd be more interested in hearing where you're from, what your interests are, etc.--Percy