_Robert_ wrote:

Simon Paynton wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:
Divine significance to Digital Root Mechanics is often characterized as pseudomath or numerology by the scientific community.

Here is the magic: A + B + C + D = A, using modulus arithmetic. It’s beyond circular stupidity.

You will respond with further supposed objections. But one thing you w…[Read more]

The thing is, it’s impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, by logic or any other means, in this world we have.  Evidence would be nice; failing that, it’s unprovable either way.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
I am going to called this “Rube Goldberg” theology. Finding a pattern after the fact doesn’t explain anything. Your post-hoc pattern mining can make any number appear special if you look long enough.

Exactly. Here this pattern is supposed to teach us that circular logic proves itself, LOL. That’s so fucking brill…[Read more]

I am going to called this “Rube Goldberg” theology. Finding a pattern after the fact doesn’t explain anything. Your post-hoc pattern mining can make any number appear special if you look long enough.

Simon Paynton wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:
Divine significance to Digital Root Mechanics is often characterized as pseudomath or numerology by the scientific community.

DeepMind has spoken. The answer’s 42.

In the mid 2020’s we find theists doing all sorts of backflips to find evidence for their magic cults. Typically, it’s the “something had to c…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:
Divine significance to Digital Root Mechanics is often characterized as pseudomath or numerology by the scientific community.

DeepMind has spoken.  The answer’s 42.

_Robert_ wrote:
Not impressed with your silly AI. You can get AI to say anything if you ask the right way.

Then do it:

Do the same.

Produce any proof of God; from any worldview; that claims empirical and mathematical certainty rather than faith, symbolism, or metaphor.

Then:

• Formalize it into axioms, Define its operations, State its fal…[Read more]

King Iyk wrote:
the validity of the proof

Can you run it past a “theorem prover”?  I’m told they exist, for proving mathematical theorems.