Would This Really be Convincing?

[singpeace]

This was posted on another forum. I'm wondering if this person's statement would be true for all or most Agnostics, Atheists, Skeptics here. Would it really take something this incredible? Just curious.


It might be convincing to see proof of a mathematical nature; something so sophisticated that it is impossible for man to recreate.

For instance, take the genealogy of Christ in Matt 1:1‑17 and show the following kind of phenomena:

1. The number of words in the vocabulary will divide by the number seven.
2. The number of words beginning with a vowel is divisible by seven.
3. The number of words beginning with a consonant is divisible by seven.
4. The number of letters in the vocabulary is divisible by seven.
5. Of these letters, both the consonants and the vowels divide by seven.
6. Number of words in the vocabulary occurring more than once is divisible by seven.
7. Those occurring only once likewise divide by seven.
8. The number of words occurring in more than one form is divisible by seven.
9. The number occurring in only one form likewise divides by seven.
10. Number of nouns is divisible by seven.
11. Number that are not nouns divides by seven.
12. The number of proper names divides by seven.
13. The male names divide by seven. The female names divide by seven.
14. Number of words beginning with each of the letters of the alphabet is divisible by seven.

Proof of this phenomena; using only the original 2000-year old Greek text, might come close to solid evidence.

 

[singpeace]

hmmm.

 

[drich0150]

I guess it all depends on how or what one wants to be convinced of.

If God was divisible by 7 in the Greek I guess this would do it.

 

[LBP]

What you have described hardly seems to me "so sophisticated that it would be impossible for man to recreate." I believe that would be precisely the explanation that would occur to a skeptic -- i.e., the original author of Matthew 1:1-17 set out to create that pattern. Some of the evidence from Intelligent Design is at a level of mathematical improbability that is mind-boggling, but it convinces relatively few skeptics. Some paranormal studies have produced laboratory evidence of PSI that is likewise at an extreme of mathematical improbability, but it convinces relatively few skeptics. Those who are diehard atheists and skeptics are not looking to be "convinced" they are wrong (any more than a Christian is looking to be convinced that his beliefs are wrong). There have been a number of instances where diehard disbelievers in the paranormal personally experienced fairly astounding paranormal phenomena, and it did not change their views - they simply found explanations consistent with their previous beliefs. Mathematical "proofs" are particularly unconvincing, because the fact is that extraordinary, seemingly impossible coincidences do happen. If it could somehow be shown that the original author of Matthew 1:1-17 didn't set out to create this pattern, I believe the skeptic's fall-back position would simply be "extraordinary coincidence, but certainly not evidence of anything to do with a supernatural God."

 

[elman]

What you have described hardly seems to me "so sophisticated that it would be impossible for man to recreate." I believe that would be precisely the explanation that would occur to a skeptic -- i.e., the original author of Matthew 1:1-17 set out to create that pattern. Some of the evidence from Intelligent Design is at a level of mathematical improbability that is mind-boggling, but it convinces relatively few skeptics. Some paranormal studies have produced laboratory evidence of PSI that is likewise at an extreme of mathematical improbability, but it convinces relatively few skeptics. Those who are diehard atheists and skeptics are not looking to be "convinced" they are wrong (any more than a Christian is looking to be convinced that his beliefs are wrong). There have been a number of instances where diehard disbelievers in the paranormal personally experienced fairly astounding paranormal phenomena, and it did not change their views - they simply found explanations consistent with their previous beliefs. Mathematical "proofs" are particularly unconvincing, because the fact is that extraordinary, seemingly impossible coincidences do happen. If it could somehow be shown that the original author of Matthew 1:1-17 didn't set out to create this pattern, I believe the skeptic's fall-back position would simply be "extraordinary coincidence, but certainly not evidence of anything to do with a supernatural God."

It may well have been intentional on the part of the writters of the Bible. Numbers were significant before and certainly after the time of Pythagoris about 500 BC. In the time of Jesus numbers carried symbolic messages that have been lost to the average person living today. Seven was a perfect number conveying the totality of four representing the four corners of the earth or four directions or the four elements the Greeks said made up everything, and refering to the physical world and three which was a symbol for spiritual things and God. Twelve was also a symbolic number being the multiple of four and three. The Bible uses these numbers throughout its pages. A time, times, and half a time is 3 and 1/2 meaning part of the whole which is seven. Twelve was the number of the tribes and the number of the apostles and that was not coincidence. The number 1000 did not ususally mean 1000 but instead was a reference to a very large number. A thousand years would be forever to the man on the street. Fourty was a nomal time period and six of course being less than perfect was evil and in threes would be spiritualy evil.

 

[singpeace]

I agree a die-hard nonbeliever would argue regardless.

The fact is, this phenomena occurs exactly as I described but throughout the entire Bible; from Genesis to Revelation, in ancient Hebrew and Greek, written by about 40 men over a period of about 1600 years dating from 1500 BC to about 100 years after Christ.

I was curious to see if just one nonbeliever would consider this MAY be reason for pause.

I suspect that the pattern/phenomena would be embraced by nonbelievers if it were found in the Quran and Hadith, the Hindu Rig-Veda, or the Sacred Texts of Buddhism, etc.

More and more I have come to believe no answer will ever be good enough. I've honestly and diligently sought out and presented God-proof at the requests of nonbelievers. I can call it proof because no nonbeliever yet has been willing to double-check my math, so to speak.

Now, why is it that a common theme among nonbelievers is; "the more educated a person is, the less likely he or she is to be a Christian", and yet I can't get a single nonbeliever to confirm nor disprove my presented evidence? Is it because to do so may require 1. having tolerance and an open mind, 2. in-depth reading and possibly some independent research, and 3. acknowledging the fact that God may be real?

I have met very kind and polite nonbelievers, but for the most part, intolerant on this issue in that they have been unwilling to even consider that there could be evidence of God's existence. Ironic that they ask for this evidence on a regular basis.

I mean no disrespect to any nonbeliever. This just happens to be my experience thus far.