Proof that the Abrahamic god exists?

[Nihilist Virus]

Versions are translations from source documents. Focus on those. It's irrelevant if versions seen to say different things. One say thou shall not murder. Another says kill.

That is not a contradiction.

Are you saying that there is not a single English version on earth that can be just trusted blindly?

 

[Xalith]

Are you saying that there is not a single English version on earth that can be just trusted blindly?

Most will tell you that the KJV is the "base" or "best" English Translation. It was certainly the first.

And, like I said, if you ever have a question, that's what biblehub (which uses Strong's Concordance) is for, so you can look up the Hebrew words and that site will tell you everywhere they are used in the Bible and the different meaning(s) (if multiple) that word can have and all of its forms.

The problem with the Bible, is that it is heavily scrutinized over every single word by people trying to disprove it, but yet a lot of these nitpicky details lie in translation errors.

That's like taking a popular Japanese book and trying to pick it apart word-by-word, wanting an exact translation. You're probably not going to get it, because it's a whole different language.

 

[stage five]

I didn't claim Galileo said that. I was copy/pasting someone else's signature.

I didn't think I said you said that.

Firstly, no axiomatic system can verify its own axioms, meaning that mathematics is, at the absolute best, a system comprised of nothing but assumptions, definitions, and then the conclusions that follow.

Actually, math isn't axiomatic and you obviously do not get math.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, can be proven from assumptions and definitions.

Math has nothing to do with assumptions and definitions. Math isn't a complex system of nonsense as you seem to suggest it is, rather it is used to make your post and mine exist right now.

There are only conditional proofs; every proof ever demonstrated is conditional upon the truth value of its axioms. We generally make good use of mathematics because we chose axioms which seem to be congruent with reality, but we already see that our system of logic does not apply to the quantum world because electrons can and do interact with themselves, and interfere with themselves, meaning we have to relinquish either the law of excluded middle or the law of identity. That is, these laws not only fail to be true in any absolute sense, but they fail to be true even in our own universe. It only follows that the law of non-contradiction, while seemingly being unfeasible as false in this universe, is still nothing but an assumption which need not be true in all possible realities.

I like that you are trying to sound smart but you are using words and ideas in nonsensical ways.
I am guessing that you are within a few years of being 20, plus or minus?

Secondly, you will notice that in every spoken language on earth, all words are defined in terms of other words.

No, all words can be defined in terms of other words.

So if we have a sentence like, "The ball is red," and we replace "ball" with its definition, then we have a longer sentence; since we will never arrive at a word which requires no definition, it follows that this process iterates indefinitely. Logic and mathematics avoid this by employing primitive terms that have no definition. So in mathematics, the equality "2+2=4" can be expressed as the function+:ZxZ --> Z such that +(2,2)=2+2=4. This decomposes further because we construct the natural numbers where 0=Ø, 1=Øunion{Ø}={Ø}, 2={Ø}union{{Ø}}={Ø,{Ø}}, and etc., and also an ordered pair (a,b) is defined as {a, {b}} so that +(2,2)=2+2=4 is expressed entirely in primitive, undefined terms: +({Ø,{Ø}},{{Ø,{Ø}}}) is contained in {Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}},{Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}}}}, and vice versa.

So we see that logic and mathematics are the use of terms that have no meaning which are said to be expressing an unverifiable assumption that is then used to conditionally prove another arbitrary statement which also decomposes into terms that have no meaning. Not quite seeing where "truth" comes into play, nor do I see where you are founded in rejecting the formalization of the meaninglessness of mathematics.

You are saying a lot of nothing. Math has meaning in that it produces practical results. If you want to question the meaning of words and speak of definitions, then we are getting into late post-modern philosophy in which there is no truth - words are meaningless except in providing predictability.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Okay, I read over the two (I was confusing another section, sorry).

Nehemiah 7:66: 42,360
Ezra 2:64: 42,360

I don't see a discrepancy here? Unless it's hidden in the family tallies somewhere?

Compare the numbers in the clans in each of the accounts. Roughly half of the numbers are the same, and half are off. By random amounts, maybe by 1, by 10, by 1000, by 37, sometimes going up from Ezra to Nehemiah, and sometimes the other way around.

 

[stage five]

I could release a new translation, and call it the XNT (Xalith's New Translation) and I could make it say anything I want to say. Doesn't mean it is true.

When dealing with the Bible (or any important writing for that matter), one really should seek the first edition, or at least the earliest edition possible when a question arises.

The bible doesn't have a first edition.

Every time it is re-translated (just look up the NIV sometime if you want a load of junk), stuff gets lost or mis-translated, or skewed for political reasons. The best is probably the 1611 KJV but not very many people have a 1611 KJV, so they gotta settle for a 1711 instead (which is the one that nearly everybody has heard/read from), which isn't bad, per se. I consider it the "base" English Translation.

On what basis? That is the oldest in English? It relied on newer manuscripts.

And again, Hebrew/Greek.

If you got a question, go back to the Hebrew/Greek to remove all translation errors. The Hebrew says basically the same thing the KJV does: It names Johanan as the "Firstborn" but says "second, third, fourth" (but does not say "born"). They have words for second-born, but yet that word was not used in this passage. Maybe, because, that's not what was meant?

There isn't one Hebrew or Greek text, you realize that, right? There are Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. They don't all agree.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What I've shown is that Zedekiah and the "discrepancy" might not be a discrepancy at all.

Basically, what I'm doing is disproving the "irrefutable proof" that the Bible is wrong. You just admitted that it is possible that this could be the case. Therefore, there's no more "irrefutable proof" that the Bible is wrong when it concerns Zedekiah and Shallum. There's a way it could be right. We have no proof, one way or the other.

Last Thursdayism (the sarcastic claim that the universe came into existence last Thursday complete with a history and your memories were created in this process) proves that Jesus might've never really existed. Although possible, it is not a proposition that is taken seriously.

The text says firstborn, second, third and fourth. You have precedents of cases where sons are listed out of order, but you don't have a precedent where they are explicitly numerated like this but yet are meant to be in a different order. Although possible, and no matter how consistent, your proposition has no evidence, not even a single shred.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Most will tell you that the KJV is the "base" or "best" English Translation. It was certainly the first.

And, like I said, if you ever have a question, that's what biblehub (which uses Strong's Concordance) is for, so you can look up the Hebrew words and that site will tell you everywhere they are used in the Bible and the different meaning(s) (if multiple) that word can have and all of its forms.

The problem with the Bible, is that it is heavily scrutinized over every single word by people trying to disprove it, but yet a lot of these nitpicky details lie in translation errors.

That's like taking a popular Japanese book and trying to pick it apart word-by-word, wanting an exact translation. You're probably not going to get it, because it's a whole different language.

So in other words... no?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I didn't think I said you said that.



Actually, math isn't axiomatic and you obviously do not get math.

Math is not axiomatic? So you prove things without initial assumptions? Sir, you, frankly, are quite clueless on what math is.

Math has nothing to do with assumptions and definitions. Math isn't a complex system of nonsense as you seem to suggest it is, rather it is used to make your post and mine exist right now.

You are referring to the utility of math. I never said that math has no utility. I said that it has no meaning and it is not true in any absolute sense.

The fact that 2+2=4 is a meaningless statement is the very reason that we can say 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples. If we proved that 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples, then we still must prove that 2 firetrucks + 2 firetrucks = 4 firetrucks. What we have done in math is create an effective procedure for describing this process with meaningless units.

I like that you are trying to sound smart but you are using words and ideas in nonsensical ways.
I am guessing that you are within a few years of being 20, plus or minus?

My profile is visible for all to see, so your research abilities are clearly lacking.

I do believe you are saying that it is nonsense because you simply don't understand it.

Mathematics is defined entirely in terms of sets. Numbers are sets. Equality and other relations are notions of set containment.

The number zero is nothing more than the empty set. The empty set is a primitive term which has no meaning.

No, all words can be defined in terms of other words.

Exactly.

You are saying a lot of nothing. Math has meaning in that it produces practical results.

No, the fact that it is meaningless is what gives it application.

If you want to question the meaning of words and speak of definitions, then we are getting into late post-modern philosophy in which there is no truth - words are meaningless except in providing predictability.

Words are meaningless except nothing. There is no truth.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So anyways, @Nihilist Virus , I'd like to ask you a few questions:

1). You do realize the Jews did not believe in Christ, and heavily persecuted Christians, right?
2). You recognize that the symbol of Christ (and Christianity by extension) is a cross, right?
3). You recognize that the Torah (most of the Old Testament) was written before Christ's birth, right? (Dead Sea Scrolls prove this)
4). You recognize that Crucifixion was not of Jewish invention (it started in Persia and the Romans copied it), right?

You want to tell me why there's a very distinct cross displayed in Numbers 2?

Is that just coincidence, or did the Jews somehow decide to write a book that says "thou shalt camp like this" to make a cross formation, a symbol that wouldn't be used for another thousand+ years for a Messiah that they didn't even believe in, before crucifixion was even invented (this happened way before Persia was a thing)?

In case you're wondering what I'm going on about, watch this video (it's short, so don't worry):

So... got any explanations as to why the Jews would insist upon camping in a cross formation when the Jews did not believe in Christ nor Christianity?

They camped that way... because God told them to because the Cross is a symbol that God chose. He had them do this to insert yet more links that tell the reader that the Old Testament is meant to be linked to the New Testament.

The Old Testament predicts the New Testament which wasn't even written yet.

I don't know of anybody who can write a book that anticipates that another book will be written 2,000 years later that compliments it, especially when the people who will write the books 2,000 years later were persecuted and hated by the group that wrote the first book.

There's absolutely no way the Jews would have collaborated with the Christians, and there's no way the Christians could have retro-actively changed the Book of Numbers (remember: Dead Sea Scrolls and the existence of the Torah long before Christ came).

So, uh...

I don't know how else to explain this, other than a divine being orchestrating all of this.

Quite a bizarre argument. Common shapes include the circle, the triangle, and the cross. I don't know why they camped that way, maybe so all of their backs were against each other and they couldn't be snuck up upon?

If you want to talk about what God told them to do, how about talking about the rape, genocide, and slavery?

 

[stage five]

Math is not axiomatic? So you prove things without initial assumptions?

Yes, that's correct.

Sir, you, frankly, are quite clueless on what math is.

No, you are one of those people that think math is a complicated system of fairy tales with no real basis in reality. When in fact, math is what is making this conversation possible.

You are referring to the utility of math. I never said that math has no utility. I said that it has no meaning and it is not true in any absolute sense.

The fact that 2+2=4 is a meaningless statement is the very reason that we can say 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples. If we proved that 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples, then we still must prove that 2 firetrucks + 2 firetrucks = 4 firetrucks. What we have done in math is create an effective procedure for describing this process with meaningless units.

Then you are getting into philosophy. What is sad is that you want to sound so post-modern philosophically, but you don't even get basic concepts.

My profile is visible for all to see, so your research abilities are clearly lacking.

So I am to believe anything I read on the internet?

I do believe you are saying that it is nonsense because you simply don't understand it.

No, I am saying it is nonsense because I am knowledgeable about what you are saying and I know you are putting it together in a nonsensical way.

Mathematics is defined entirely in terms of sets. Numbers are sets. Equality and other relations are notions of set containment.

The number zero is nothing more than the empty set. The empty set is a primitive term which has no meaning.

Exactly.




No, the fact that it is meaningless is what gives it application.





Words are meaningless except nothing. There is no truth.

Nihilism is the pursuit of college-age kids and 30-somethings with problems in social skills.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yes, that's correct.



No, you are one of those people that think math is a complicated system of fairy tales with no real basis in reality. When in fact, math is what is making this conversation possible.



Then you are getting into philosophy. What is sad is that you want to sound so post-modern philosophically, but you don't even get basic concepts.



So I am to believe anything I read on the internet?



No, I am saying it is nonsense because I am knowledgeable about what you are saying and I know you are putting it together in a nonsensical way.



Nihilism is the pursuit of college-age kids and 30-somethings with problems in social skills.

So you are saying you can prove things without initial assumptions. You realize you would be given the Nobel Prize if you could show this?

Pick up a book and read about what Euclid gave the world. You are several thousands of years behind the rest of us.

Who am I kidding, you won't do that. So here.

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/elements/bookI/bookI.html

He describes the definitions, postulates (i.e. axioms, i.e. things which cannot be proven within the system), common notions, and propositions (theorems). He uses the unproven postulates to prove the theorems.

If you can prove Euclid's postulates, fame and fortune await.

 

[stage five]

So you are saying you can prove things without initial assumptions. You realize you would be given the Nobel Prize if you could show this?

No, that's not what I am saying as that violates the scientific method. You have to start with an assumption before you can set out to prove it.

Pick up a book and read about what Euclid gave the world. You are several thousands of years behind the rest of us.

In terms of what?

He describes the definitions, postulates (i.e. axioms, i.e. things which cannot be proven within the system), common notions, and propositions (theorems). He uses the unproven postulates to prove the theorems.

If you can prove Euclid's postulates, fame and fortune await.

That's a lovely strawman, but you ignore the actual content of my post. I don't play games with people and I find no satisfaction in winning an argument or debate. It means I have wasted time discussing ideas with a person. You describe yourself as a nihilist, which if you really were, you wouldn't be discussing what you do, except to paradoxically assert the truth of nihilism, or our of narcissism. If you were better read, you would realize your arguments ultimately lead up to post-modern philosophers who cease to publish anymore because they realize they are only publishing predictability.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, that's not what I am saying as that violates the scientific method. You have to start with an assumption before you can set out to prove it.



In terms of what?



That's a lovely strawman, but you ignore the actual content of my post. I don't play games with people and I find no satisfaction in winning an argument or debate. It means I have wasted time discussing ideas with a person. You describe yourself as a nihilist, which if you really were, you wouldn't be discussing what you do, except to paradoxically assert the truth of nihilism, or our of narcissism. If you were better read, you would realize your arguments ultimately lead up to post-modern philosophers who cease to publish anymore because they realize they are only publishing predictability.

Insult after insult from you. Meanwhile I show you directly how you are wrong - that Euclid's postulates cannot be proven - and when your cursory internet search shows that (gasp!) you were wrong, and that these assumptions are in fact baseless, you steer the conversation into the scientific method and then claim I'm playing games, making strawmen, and ignoring the content of your argument.

It doesn't matter what I am, nihilist or not, that is not the issue. Your last paragraph is a desperate flee from the issue. This all started when I said that mathematics is just assumptions and definitions. You bring us into the land of science and claim victory. Lol.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

By the way, here are a couple forum posts to get you started in your quest to know what math is:

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52350.html

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52290.html

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62560.html

It's OK to be wrong.

 

[stage five]

Insult after insult from you.

I am not sure how anything I said was insulting.

Meanwhile I show you directly how you are wrong - that Euclid's postulates cannot be proven - and when your cursory internet search shows that (gasp!) you were wrong, and that these assumptions are in fact baseless, you steer the conversation into the scientific method and then claim I'm playing games, making strawmen, and ignoring the content of your argument.

You are making a strawmen argument that Euclid's postulates cannot be proven. I said nothing about these. You made the statement about not having assumptions before proving anything. I said nothing about that and referred to the scientific method about the necessity of assumptions before setting out to prove something.

It doesn't matter what I am, nihilist or not, that is not the issue.

Actually, that speaks to your credibility. If you are a nihilist then any kind of philosophical discussion should be pointless to you. You attempt to sound post-modernist but you clearly do not buy into what you are selling.

Your last paragraph is a desperate flee from the issue.

From what issue, specifically? Because you are all over the place and I see no point to your posts other than being contrarian.

This all started when I said that mathematics is just assumptions and definitions. You bring us into the land of science and claim victory. Lol.

I just said I do not seek 'victory' in any discussion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Did I use the word "require"? Here is an opportunity; either take or decline.

I decline. You haven't presented a case to refute.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

One could look at the science of the cosmos and then focus on the microscopic world (take a single cell for example) and ask how it's possible that by chance all the necessary factors for life exist apart from a Designer. My belief is that everything eventually points to God. Evil for example points to God. Where does the notion of evil come from? By what standard? And if you have a standard for which to describe evil then you must have a standard for which to describe that which is good. Where exactly does this good spring from? Why is it basically universal (show me a culture that celebrate cowardice and abhors valor). How do we adequately explain universal beliefs?

"We've evolved" doesn't really cut it. It's circular as it assumes what it's trying to prove.

Sounds like an argument from ignorance, or suspiciously close to one.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I am not sure how anything I said was insulting.



You are making a strawmen argument that Euclid's postulates cannot be proven. I said nothing about these. You made the statement about not having assumptions before proving anything. I said nothing about that and referred to the scientific method about the necessity of assumptions before setting out to prove something.



Actually, that speaks to your credibility. If you are a nihilist then any kind of philosophical discussion should be pointless to you. You attempt to sound post-modernist but you clearly do not buy into what you are selling.



From what issue, specifically? Because you are all over the place and I see no point to your posts other than being contrarian.



I just said I do not seek 'victory' in any discussion.

You seem to think there is only one form of nihilism. You are simply wrong.

I am a logical nihilist, which is to say that I do not believe that the axioms of logic are true in any sense, absolute or otherwise. We treat them as conditionally true and move tentatively from there.

You invoke the scientific method as if I am opposed to it or as if it is relevant to the discussion. Neither is the case. I find the scientific method to be the best method of determining how reality works. However, the scientific method is irrelevant to mathematics.

In science, matter and energy factually exist, and they exist just because. They are not inventions.

In mathematics, numbers exist because we invented them.

If reality were different, we would've invented math in a different way. In fact we have already invented other forms of math that might describe other universes.


You are making a strawmen argument that Euclid's postulates cannot be proven. I said nothing about these.

But you did. You said that math is not axiomatic. Yet the geometry that we use today was axiomatically formulated thousands of years ago.

 

[Xalith]

Quite a bizarre argument. Common shapes include the circle, the triangle, and the cross. I don't know why they camped that way, maybe so all of their backs were against each other and they couldn't be snuck up upon?

If you really wanted the shape of a camp that could not be snuck up upon, you'd camp in a circle with the outer ring facing outwards. You'd use up a lot less room, and it'd be truly impossible to sneak up on.

I'm sure you've enough tactical smarts to realize that a cross formation is not the way to camp if you are doing it to protect the center. It uses a lot of unnecessary room, and you leave 4 giant corners unprotected that the people in the tents would have to suddenly get up and move to rush to protect the corners.

So no, this wasn't for tactical reasons whatsoever.

It just so happens that it makes an almost perfect cross, and the cross just happens to be God's favorite symbol. But no, let's not actually consider that, because we're going to just toss out evidence on the grounds "there's no proof that's what it was", while marginalizing what it could mean, right?

I know I've mentioned the math behind Daniel 9 before in a thread you participated in, but you waved that off saying that they could have set that upon purpose (even though you're talking about how that would require the cooperation of the Jews and Christians, the former who bitterly persecuted the latter) or something. I'm not sure if that was you who said it, or someone else, though. If you want me to go over that again if you don't remember, I could. I find it a rather fascinating thing, how someone can make a prediction some 500-600 years in advance and it comes down to the very day. lol.

Or how about the fact that the only two verses in the Bible that start with "In the Beginning", you can find pi and E (the mathematical constant) encoded (Genesis 1 for Pi, John 1 for E) to a large number of digits, using the exact same formula in both verses (despite the fact Genesis and John were written by the Jews and Christians respectively)? That's... pretty strange, considering Genesis was written long before Pi came about, and John 1 was written before E was discovered, and if any single letter in those verses would have been different, the whole thing wouldn't work. Not to mention, the math required to figure these out (much less how to encode them like that and still come up with a writing that makes sense!) did not exist during the time the Old Testament was written.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2003/482/ <---if you want to read up on that.

The chances of this happening unintentionally are... probably more astronomical than you winning the lottery every single day for the rest of your life.

If you want to talk about what God told them to do, how about talking about the rape, genocide, and slavery?

Does that somehow invalidate the fact that He exists, or that the Bible is His word?

And besides, I don't recall anywhere in the Bible where God told anybody to rape anybody. That would be news to me, because in Levitical Law, He forbade adultery which would include rape, and I remember there being laws against taking anyone other than a Jew as a husband/wife. Now, it is true that the Jews did take wives out of the people they conquered, but, well, the Jews broke lots of laws over all of those years. But God never told them to do that.

Genocide? Yes, God did tell them to wipe out the people in Canaan. He promised that land to the Jews and told them to go in there and possess it. There's been lots of theories and conjectures as to why He might have done that. Regardless of the reason, that doesn't mean that He doesn't exist, nor does it mean the Bible is not His word.

Slavery? There are lots of passages in the Bible that talk about respecting your bondmen (which is basically the same thing as a slave). You're supposed to treat them right, you're supposed to give them their just wage, etc etc. When you say "slave" and talk about God's laws, I think God's view of a "slave" is more like what we have today, with workers. Think about it: are we not all slaves to money IRL today? We sit in a cubicle so we can afford to eat? If you follow the laws in the Bible about bondmen, it starts to sound more like an employer/employee type deal more than it does slavery in the sense of Plantation Slaves during the Civil War.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Genocide? Yes, God did tell them to wipe out the people in Canaan. He promised that land to the Jews and told them to go in there and possess it. There's been lots of theories and conjectures as to why He might have done that. Regardless of the reason, that doesn't mean that He doesn't exist, nor does it mean the Bible is not His word.

No, but it does bring into question Yahweh's moral character.