Yeah, but I just told you that any "proof" comes with assumptions, and no "set of assumptions" is always correct.

And you know, that article you linked is pretty stupid. It is trying to say that the bible is inspired based on the number of verses in Genesis?

Quote:

---

Of these 49 words, the number which begin with a vowel is exactly 28, or 4 7's. The number of words which begin with a consonant is 21, or 3 7's.

---

Common man you don't actually believe this shit, do you? Well maybe from your perspective it makes sense... from mine it sounds like a lot of crap.

Quote:

---

The shortest word is in the middle. The number of letters in this word and the word to its left is exactly 7.

---

Quote:

---

It's pretty serious whether you think so or not, considering this man committed the last 50 years of his life, resulting in 43,000 hand-written pages of deciphering, to unraveling this numeric mystery.

---

Quote:

---

adjust said:
If you look at any proof, especially a geometric proof, there are a set of assumptions, called axioms. These statements are assumed to be true and do not require proof. For the proof to be rigorous (ie bulletproof) it requires certain assumptions, called an axiomatic set.

Back in the early 20th century some mathematicians wanted to create a universal axiomatic set for all mathematical proofs. This would be a kind of framework within which all of mathematics would be proven. You can think of an axiomatic set as a perspective.

However, this idea was destroyed in around 1931 when a mathematician named Godel published something called "incompleteness theorem". Basically what he showed was that any complex axiomatic set would have statements which could neither be proved or disproved.

The implication was that there was no universal axiomatic set that could tie all of mathematics together. The set would require an infinite number of assumptions for it to be universal...

So when you say something is ABSOLUTELY MATHEMATICALLY TRUE you should really be saying it is true based on the axiomatic set that a particular human chose... this is equivalent to saying it is true, from a particular perspective.

And then you have Godel's incompleteness theorem which states that any complex axiomatic system is incomplete. In other words no particular perspective is always correct.

In the case of euclidean geometry it is fairly easy to show any proof to be false if you change the axioms. What does this have to do with the bible I wonder...

---

Man, where were you when I was arguing math was an invention not a discovery last week? 

Quote:

---

adjust said:
this is equivalent to saying it is true, from a particular perspective.

---

if i create a  2d "equilateral"  triangle, it must be viewed at 90 viewing plain for it to visually remain what i claim it to be. however if I view this 2d object in a 3d world there are a number of angles in which i can hold the triangle where it is clear that the triangle is not equilateral , and a few in which it ceases to be a triangle.

mathematics as we know it is merely an accepted POV from which to base measurements, theories, logic etc.

Quote:

---

During the first year of his university studies he took a few mathematics courses but didn't excel.

...

However, outside reviews of his work cast doubt on the value of his findings. A review of his work on the Gospel of Mark suggests that he freely picked and chose from various alternative readings of manuscripts, and that any patterns he claimed to have found were in fact his own creation. The main criticism is that the same kind of numeric patterns can be found from any text.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Panin

More: http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/panin.html

Quote:

---

Let's all pretend for a minute that we're not a mathematical genius. 
(okay, that was a joke because nobody here is.)

---

Quote:

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

Quote:

---

Let's all pretend for a minute that we're not a mathematical genius. 
(okay, that was a joke because nobody here is.)

---

Beg pardon?

---

Quote:

---

Veritas said:

Quote:

---

During the first year of his university studies he took a few mathematics courses but didn't excel.

...

However, outside reviews of his work cast doubt on the value of his findings. A review of his work on the Gospel of Mark suggests that he freely picked and chose from various alternative readings of manuscripts, and that any patterns he claimed to have found were in fact his own creation. The main criticism is that the same kind of numeric patterns can be found from any text.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Panin

More: http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/panin.html

---

Quote:

---

ObliviousSeeker said:
Listen, I'm completely understanding of the argument against Panin's claims.  Provide me with a comprehensive analysis of any other piece of literature that shares these same improbabilities and that will be a start.

---

Quote:

---

ObliviousSeeker said:
No... he wasn't looking for them in a place they would be significant FOR HIM.  He accidently realized there was a pattern occurring, and from there realized the pattern was significant throughout the entire 66 books.  The existence of the pattern makes it impossible for any of the letters, words, phrases, anything at all to be changed or else it would no longer fit the pattern.  This, according to Palin's work, is how God put His seal on the Bible to protect it from corruption.  It makes sense.  Now it's just a matter of
1) Can you actually disprove this?
2) If you can't you have to admit that and start considering that maybe the BIble was actually inspired by God.
3) Begin to actually study the Bible and learn that it is good news for everyone.

---

Quote:

---

Irdamage said:

Quote:

---

ObliviousSeeker said:
No... he wasn't looking for them in a place they would be significant FOR HIM.  He accidently realized there was a pattern occurring, and from there realized the pattern was significant throughout the entire 66 books.  The existence of the pattern makes it impossible for any of the letters, words, phrases, anything at all to be changed or else it would no longer fit the pattern.  This, according to Palin's work, is how God put His seal on the Bible to protect it from corruption.  It makes sense.  Now it's just a matter of
1) Can you actually disprove this?
2) If you can't you have to admit that and start considering that maybe the BIble was actually inspired by God.
3) Begin to actually study the Bible and learn that it is good news for everyone.

---

Sir you're evidence is very weak. Prove beyond a shadow of doubt that it this is a truth from a mathematical perspective and we might listen. So far you have not, and neither has the author of that article. The bible has countless holes within its logic, and is not "good news for everyone"

Although the idea itself of trying to mathematically prove a theological or philosophical ideology or scripture to be universal truth is absolutely absurd.

---

I'll start by asking: Did you read that entire page about Ivan and his work?  That would be a good place to start because a lot of your questions may have already been answered there...

Okay, secondly, the whole bit of 'we might listen',  let me just address that briefly:  Nobody ever listens if they don't want to.  There is nothing on this planet that is going to convince certain people of God, no matter how compelling it is, no matter how much evidence supports it.  I'm over that already because it's something I can't change. 
But you owe it to yourself to take a good, hard look at this work OBJECTIVELY... and deeply consider it's implications. 

Also, this whole 'prove beyond a shadow of a doubt' thing, are you serious?  You probably can't count high enough to count the number of things that you believe to be true, even though it's not proven 'beyond a shadow of a doubt'.  So why does this have to be?  Because it's about God?  I find it so funny that you'll believe anything you read in a science textbook to be 100% truth 'beyond a shadow of a doubt', yet you probably are light years behind the current consensus in the Scientific Community about.. almost everything. 

BTW your last statement about it being absurd clearly indicates you didn't read any of the facts on the table.  If you're going to say that, you may as well just say "This is dumb" and consider that a good argument without even referencing anything..

Quote:

---

ObliviousSeeker said:
Let's all pretend for a minute that we're not a mathematical genius. 
(okay, that was a joke because nobody here is.)

---

Quote:

---

The Cypher said:
Even if these mathematical regularities do exist within Scripture, what good are they?

Can any meaning be deciphered from these patterns?

---

Quote:

---

ExplosiveMango said:

Quote:

---

ObliviousSeeker said:
Let's all pretend for a minute that we're not a mathematical genius. 
(okay, that was a joke because nobody here is.)

---

Let's assume for a moment that you know as much-

linear algebra
differential calculus
differential equation and algebra
integral calculus
Fourier theory
vector calculus
Laplace theory
z transformation theory
cosine transformation theory
discrete math
probability theory-

as I do.


Now who are we accusing of not being a math genius?
And why?

---

Quote:

---

ObliviousSeeker said:

Quote:

---

Irdamage said:

Quote:

---

ObliviousSeeker said:
No... he wasn't looking for them in a place they would be significant FOR HIM.  He accidently realized there was a pattern occurring, and from there realized the pattern was significant throughout the entire 66 books.  The existence of the pattern makes it impossible for any of the letters, words, phrases, anything at all to be changed or else it would no longer fit the pattern.  This, according to Palin's work, is how God put His seal on the Bible to protect it from corruption.  It makes sense.  Now it's just a matter of
1) Can you actually disprove this?
2) If you can't you have to admit that and start considering that maybe the BIble was actually inspired by God.
3) Begin to actually study the Bible and learn that it is good news for everyone.

---

Sir you're evidence is very weak. Prove beyond a shadow of doubt that it this is a truth from a mathematical perspective and we might listen. So far you have not, and neither has the author of that article. The bible has countless holes within its logic, and is not "good news for everyone"

Although the idea itself of trying to mathematically prove a theological or philosophical ideology or scripture to be universal truth is absolutely absurd.

---

I'll start by asking: Did you read that entire page about Ivan and his work?  That would be a good place to start because a lot of your questions may have already been answered there...

Okay, secondly, the whole bit of 'we might listen',  let me just address that briefly:  Nobody ever listens if they don't want to.  There is nothing on this planet that is going to convince certain people of God, no matter how compelling it is, no matter how much evidence supports it.  I'm over that already because it's something I can't change. 
But you owe it to yourself to take a good, hard look at this work OBJECTIVELY... and deeply consider it's implications. 

Also, this whole 'prove beyond a shadow of a doubt' thing, are you serious?  You probably can't count high enough to count the number of things that you believe to be true, even though it's not proven 'beyond a shadow of a doubt'.  So why does this have to be?  Because it's about God?  I find it so funny that you'll believe anything you read in a science textbook to be 100% truth 'beyond a shadow of a doubt', yet you probably are light years behind the current consensus in the Scientific Community about.. almost everything. 

BTW your last statement about it being absurd clearly indicates you didn't read any of the facts on the table.  If you're going to say that, you may as well just say "This is dumb" and consider that a good argument without even referencing anything..

---

Quote:

---

Irdamage said:

Quote:

---

ObliviousSeeker said:

Quote:

---

Irdamage said:

Quote:

---

ObliviousSeeker said:
No... he wasn't looking for them in a place they would be significant FOR HIM.  He accidently realized there was a pattern occurring, and from there realized the pattern was significant throughout the entire 66 books.  The existence of the pattern makes it impossible for any of the letters, words, phrases, anything at all to be changed or else it would no longer fit the pattern.  This, according to Palin's work, is how God put His seal on the Bible to protect it from corruption.  It makes sense.  Now it's just a matter of
1) Can you actually disprove this?
2) If you can't you have to admit that and start considering that maybe the BIble was actually inspired by God.
3) Begin to actually study the Bible and learn that it is good news for everyone.

---

Sir you're evidence is very weak. Prove beyond a shadow of doubt that it this is a truth from a mathematical perspective and we might listen. So far you have not, and neither has the author of that article. The bible has countless holes within its logic, and is not "good news for everyone"

Although the idea itself of trying to mathematically prove a theological or philosophical ideology or scripture to be universal truth is absolutely absurd.

---

I'll start by asking: Did you read that entire page about Ivan and his work?  That would be a good place to start because a lot of your questions may have already been answered there...

Okay, secondly, the whole bit of 'we might listen',  let me just address that briefly:  Nobody ever listens if they don't want to.  There is nothing on this planet that is going to convince certain people of God, no matter how compelling it is, no matter how much evidence supports it.  I'm over that already because it's something I can't change. 
But you owe it to yourself to take a good, hard look at this work OBJECTIVELY... and deeply consider it's implications. 

Also, this whole 'prove beyond a shadow of a doubt' thing, are you serious?  You probably can't count high enough to count the number of things that you believe to be true, even though it's not proven 'beyond a shadow of a doubt'.  So why does this have to be?  Because it's about God?  I find it so funny that you'll believe anything you read in a science textbook to be 100% truth 'beyond a shadow of a doubt', yet you probably are light years behind the current consensus in the Scientific Community about.. almost everything. 

BTW your last statement about it being absurd clearly indicates you didn't read any of the facts on the table.  If you're going to say that, you may as well just say "This is dumb" and consider that a good argument without even referencing anything..

---

1) I never asked you any questions about the text. And I read it yes, Ile provide one quick example of the logical fallacies I'm talking about.

"The great Bible "claim" then, is that "all scripture," the entire Bible, "is God-breathed." The Bible "claims" that the writers of Scripture wrote, not of their own will, but only as they were "moved or "controlled" by the Holy Spirit of God"

I think you can understand the fact that the Bible, which was written by men, has to explicitly refer in its own text that its writers were spoken to by God. More or less meaning that its writers made sure to write down they were inspired by God.This person is defending that claim by illogically trying to prove that they were right all along. That sir is a fairly large load, that you may be prepared to swallow, but I am not.

2) Looking at this text objectively is difficult because it doesn't make its base in any logic, it simply fabricates its own to justify its answers. It never follows a set pattern of how it derives the numbers for instance.

3) I am well aware of the difference between a theory and a fact.

4)It is very astonishingly absurd.

---

Quote:

---

The Cypher said:
Care to start up the discussion again? 

---

How an educated person like yourself can think math is discovered is beyond me...

Regardless, I have 'real' work to do so I cant spar with you over it today.

Quote:

---

Irdamage said:
Hes building logic on false assumptions, for example the number seven occurs repeatedly throughout the Greek and Hebrew texts once translated into english(which again all went through processes to be changed and edited through out time and looses any original meaning, unless this gentlemen has original manuscripts and is fluent in Hebrew and Greek). What if my Greek bible was translated into Chinese?

However there is little consistency between the two, random examples are brought from each with no logical way of deriving the numbers. He decides randomly when to start counting either the number of letters or the number of words. Decides to count nouns and vowels of certain passages and not others. There is no logic here, a series of factual statements that may or may not be true, that do not ultimately prove his point.

This fails math and english!

---

I find it hilarious that you can dismiss this entire work based on your own convoluted logic alone.  You haven't read a single book written by or about Ivan Panin and yet somehow you know for a fact that he just strung this all together in a nonsensical way.  THAT makes sense... not

Quote:

---

Irdamage said:

Believe what you want for better reasons than some crappy document written in 1948 by a man of questionable records about a book which was written and edited by dozens of people over the history of time.

---

Quote:

---

Veritas said:
Neither of your links provides positive reviews of his work by Harvard professors nor mathematicians.  Panin, himself, was not a mathematician.  Where is the verification for his claims?

---

Quote:

---

ObliviousSeeker said:
I find it hilarious that you can dismiss this entire work based on your own convoluted logic alone.  You haven't read a single book written by or about Ivan Panin and yet somehow you know for a fact that he just strung this all together in a nonsensical way.  THAT makes sense... not

---

Quote:

---

Veritas said:

Quote:

---

Veritas said:
Neither of your links provides positive reviews of his work by Harvard professors nor mathematicians.  Panin, himself, was not a mathematician.  Where is the verification for his claims?

---

I've read the entire article to which you've linked.  I've posted a link which refutes Panin's work, which included mathematical analyses of other literary works showing similar patterns.  Will you respond to my question?

---

Quote:

---

DieCommie said:

Quote:

---

The Cypher said:
Care to start up the discussion again? 

---

How an educated person like yourself can think math is discovered is beyond me...

Regardless, I have 'real' work to do so I cant spar with you over it today.

---

Quote:

---

ObliviousSeeker said:

Quote:

---

The Cypher said:
Even if these mathematical regularities do exist within Scripture, what good are they?

Can any meaning be deciphered from these patterns?

---

Of course!!! You need to read http://www.rangeguide.net/ivanpanin.htm to understand the meaning.  The meaning, or implications, of these mathematical patterns is that they were put there, and didn't just happen by chance (we already went over the probabilities).  This means that a) Humans put them there, which is impossible (read) or b) They were put there through a Divine effort, aka God made it this way for many reasons.  Doesn't it make sense, that if God were to actually inspire men in history to write a Holy book like the Bible, that he would do something to protect it? He did, and this is it.

Anyone who hasn't read and understood
http://www.rangeguide.net/ivanpanin.htm can't possibly follow this topic..

---

Quote:

---

ExplosiveMango said:

Quote:

---

ObliviousSeeker said:
Let's all pretend for a minute that we're not a mathematical genius. 
(okay, that was a joke because nobody here is.)

---

Let's assume for a moment that you know as much-

Fourier theory

as I do.

---

I LOVE FOURIER SERIES!!!

Nice to see someone who knows about it!

Quote:

---

ObliviousSeeker said:
I'm not an expert on Panin's work and I haven't even read any of his books.  But I will.  It is obvious that the questions posed here have already been asked decades ago.  Surely they are answered within his work and the works of others.  If you choose to dismiss Panin's work without a thorough investigation you are short changing yourself.

---

Quote:

---

adjust said:

Quote:

---

ExplosiveMango said:

Quote:

---

ObliviousSeeker said:
Let's all pretend for a minute that we're not a mathematical genius. 
(okay, that was a joke because nobody here is.)

---

Let's assume for a moment that you know as much-

Fourier theory

as I do.

---

I LOVE FOURIER SERIES!!!

Nice to see someone who knows about it!

---

And fourier Fransforms?
and discrete Fourier series?!
and discrete time Fourier transforms!?!
and discrete Fourier transforms?!?!?


I am going to prove my digital signal processing textbook was written by god!



Although, in my belief that proof would be entirely possible; I believe God to be a matter of definition.

Quote:

---

Does this imply that Shakespeare helped with the translation?

---

Quote:

---

adjust said:
Couldn't you make a fourier series that WAS god, approximately?

---