tuco wrote:That is what you are mistaken about. I appeal .. I do not like you quoting me engaging me in debate. Then again, what do I know? Perhaps you can see what inside my head better than I do. I will think it over.

I don't have to speculate about what's in your head, tuco. I've only commented on how your postings function. If you think there's a malfunction somewhere in the reading of your postings, take my word for it, they expose only inarticulate grumbling. Don't hide your light beneath a bushel, me bhoyo.

Pi is the start of Pixies.

Amazing that the fundamental constant pi could be the FIRST TWO LETTERS of pixies.

Not only that, e is in pixies, in just the place you would expect it if the word pixies was designed.

What are the chances of that?

Arnold Layne wrote:Pi is the start of Pixies.

Amazing that the fundamental constant pi could be the FIRST TWO LETTERS of pixies.

Not only that, e is in pixies, in just the place you would expect it if the word pixies was designed.

What are the chances of that?

Not only that, xi also symbolizes a number of interesting quantities in mathematics and physics including:

The Killing vector, in general relativity
A universal set in set theory
The radial integral in the spin-orbit matrix operator in atomic physics
Eigenvectors
The partition function under the grand canonical ensemble in statistical mechanics

and as if that were not enough

Random variables

We've already touched on what the s symbolizes -- entropy -- but it's usually upper case

The Power of Pixies!!!!!!!!!!

Unfortunately, all this is only a function of expressing greek letters in the latin alphabet in English.

Fenrir wrote:You'd do a lot better if you didn't wave around ignorance of probability quite so freely.

You only have one bible to sample. You can only sample it once.

The probability of rolling 6 sixes in a row is exactly the same as that if rolling any other specific combination, say 155263 or 443614.

Funnily enough your claims for god are exactly the opposite to the arguments used by the "probability of reality is 1 in a really big number therefore god" crowd.

Even funnier both arguments are equally fallacious.

If I understand correctly, among the many errors BT makes is concluding from the (correct) premise that you are more likely to pick the one red ball out of nine in ten tries than in one, that it is less probable for the first ball you pull out to be red than for the tenth one. In each case the odds are 1/9.

Using R-L reading convention and noting that the superscript function can easily be denoted "s", we can see that pixies denotes the important mathematical value s(e,i x pi), or as it's usually written eiπ.

The word pixie can be traced back as far as the 17th century, wheras Euler's identity was only discovered in the 18th century. I think we can all agree that this is remarkably improbable if no supernatural agency was at play.

Cito di Pense wrote:

tuco wrote:That is what you are mistaken about. I appeal .. I do not like you quoting me engaging me in debate. Then again, what do I know? Perhaps you can see what inside my head better than I do. I will think it over.

I don't have to speculate about what's in your head, tuco. I've only commented on how your postings function. If you think there's a malfunction somewhere in the reading of your postings, take my word for it, they expose only inarticulate grumbling. Don't hide your light beneath a bushel, me bhoyo.

I will say this and leave. If I could speak my own language you'd have no chance ;)

tuco wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

tuco wrote:That is what you are mistaken about. I appeal .. I do not like you quoting me engaging me in debate. Then again, what do I know? Perhaps you can see what inside my head better than I do. I will think it over.

I don't have to speculate about what's in your head, tuco. I've only commented on how your postings function. If you think there's a malfunction somewhere in the reading of your postings, take my word for it, they expose only inarticulate grumbling. Don't hide your light beneath a bushel, me bhoyo.

I will say this and leave. If I could speak my own language you'd have no chance

Maybe there's a third language wherein we're both on an equal footing, and we'll see how that goes. It's you who have chosen to hang out at a place that speaks English. Cry me a river.

tuco wrote:I will say this and leave. If I could speak my own language you'd have no chance

I'm not convinced that your lack of mastery over English is in any way an explanation for your inability to marshal robust arguments. It only serves to explain the lack of coherency of your sentence structure.

In post 593 of the "Can personal experience be evidence of the paranormal?" here, I posted the following:

It is the sole responsibility of the theist to provide material evidence of the existence of a ‘god’. The atheist does not need to take any active part in this process but to just metaphorically ‘sit back’ and watch the theists tie themselves in knots.

So far, BT's efforts are confirming this.

The onus is upon the theist to provide evidence of the existence of the god or gods in which they have a belief. This evidence must be peer reviewed and acceptable to believer and non-believer alike. If this evidence is accepted then non-belief and belief with respect to the existence of a supreme deity or deities will be made redundant since they will replaced by knowledge gained by direct observation.

So far, no evidence has been presented.

It is common among theist believers to assume that their belief system imparts ‘knowledge’ to the individual that they then claim is ‘evidence’ that their deity (or deities) exist. They then try to back-up this claim by presenting additional ‘evidence’ – usually in the form of ‘sacred’ or ancient writings – that ‘prove’ that their belief-driven claim is true (usually at the expense of other beliefs). This is delusional.

So far, BT's efforts have done nothing to dispel this.

Numerology is crap. It only seems to be 'workable' with the Latin alphabet and the decimal counting system.
If BT is trying to 'prove' that a god or gods exist by using the Christian Bible and numerology, then the same 'technique' must be valid for all past cultures and their sacred writings since this god is (or gods are) universal for all sentient lifeforms past and present throughout the known universe (allegedly).
To base one's assertion on a single source used by a single belief system is a nonsense when 'dealing' with a universal deity (or deities) that theists claim to have existed for all eternity.
Can one get the same, er, 'results' with the Traditional Chinese Character Set and their ancient counting system or Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs with their counting system?
The fact that some religions are centred around a single God should have no bearing on other religions that believe in multiple gods when attempting to find material evidence for the existence of any of them.

Thommo wrote:Using R-L reading convention and noting that the superscript function can easily be denoted "s", we can see that pixies denotes the important mathematical value s(e,i x pi), or as it's usually written eiπ.

The word pixie can be traced back as far as the 17th century, wheras Euler's identity was only discovered in the 18th century. I think we can all agree that this is remarkably improbable if no supernatural agency was at play.

All that's left is to figure out what it wants. We need equally elaborate translation programs to read that out of whatever it has, um, written.

Alan B wrote:If BT is trying to 'prove' that a god or gods exist by using the Christian Bible and numerology, then the same 'technique' must be valid for all past cultures and their sacred writings since this god is (or gods are) universal for all sentient lifeforms past and present throughout the known universe (allegedly).

You don't need credentials in the mental health professions to guess at what drives someone like Jenkins to produce megabytes of his own writings over the course of what must be a decade or more, all on a single topic. We cut people too much slack sometimes because their mania is for religious symbols and the concept of proof. Other people do it with UFOs, and so on.

Having 'proof' is serious power over other people. Their failure to accept the proof is the fly in the ointment that drives the proof effort into the megabyte range.

Cito di Pense wrote:

tuco wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

tuco wrote:That is what you are mistaken about. I appeal .. I do not like you quoting me engaging me in debate. Then again, what do I know? Perhaps you can see what inside my head better than I do. I will think it over.

I don't have to speculate about what's in your head, tuco. I've only commented on how your postings function. If you think there's a malfunction somewhere in the reading of your postings, take my word for it, they expose only inarticulate grumbling. Don't hide your light beneath a bushel, me bhoyo.

I will say this and leave. If I could speak my own language you'd have no chance ;)

Maybe there's a third language wherein we're both on an equal footing, and we'll see how that goes. It's you who have chosen to hang out at a place that speaks English. Cry me a river.

Ok I will not leave. Who the fuck is crying? You are fucking crying that I derail thread about nonsense. Fucking nonsense, period. There cannot be any productive debate, except entertainment, on the topic of fucking math in scripture.

I will start thread .. Mathematical Absolutes in Hans Christian Andersen. Zero replies because .. wtf? Not here. Here we debate, rationally and sceptically. Some even robustly lol

Crying .. I am not to one to run to mods to moderate what I cant handle. I can handle anything you throw at me, even in English. All you have is rhetoric. When I see you posting some data I will convert to Falun Gong.

Are you serious Cito di Pense? Because if you are, I need to re-evaluate my opinion on what your posting can contribute to my understanding of the world.

Cry me a river .. I posted one sentence. Not addressing anyone, just expressing disbelief. And you? You fucking cried a river. Please say something clever now, something robust.

Alan B wrote:Numerology is crap. It only seems to be 'workable' with the Latin alphabet ...

Actually it is pervasive throughout Hebrew religious writings. The ancient Jews were obsessed with magical numbers, numerology, gematria and the like. Similarly, biblical writings, even the Lord's Prayer, are replete with mysterious hidden references to the Sepheroth and other Kabbalistic mumbo-jumbo.

Oh, and could certain people maybe go elsewhere to scratch each others eyes out? Just a thought.

cyghost wrote:

TopCat wrote:I've been thinking about this, and after much consideration, I've come to the conclusion that despite my earlier objections, Blue Triangle is completely right in his assessment of the amazing coincidence of pi and e appearing in scripture like this.

I can't imagine how I could have been so comprehensively wrong, and will be reassessing things. I may even be returning to religion.

Psalm 14:1

Well my April fool fell rather flat. I was hoping to get a bit more in the way of reaction than that.

I shall sulk now.

chairman bill wrote:

Alan B wrote:Numerology is crap. It only seems to be 'workable' with the Latin alphabet ...

Actually it is pervasive throughout Hebrew religious writings. The ancient Jews were obsessed with magical numbers, numerology, gematria and the like. Similarly, biblical writings, even the Lord's Prayer, are replete with mysterious hidden references to the Sepheroth and other Kabbalistic mumbo-jumbo.

Yeah. That occurred to me after I posted. It still doesn't make any difference - humans have always looked for a 'magic' explanation of the world about them with no meaningful evidence produced anywhere by anyone.

tuco wrote:You are fucking crying that I derail thread about nonsense.

I agree, tuco, that was a fucking mistake. Those who know how to do it properly simply ignore your posts, as happened in this thread, where you were even commenting more or less on topic:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/islam ... l#p2396919

I'll remember to do that next time. Sorry for the irritation.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

blue triangle wrote:

blue triangle wrote: Now, the truth is that although I've always supported religion since I gave up atheism, I'm uncomfortable with a lot of what religion does and says, including my own religion, Christianity.

Again, I don't believe you were ever an atheist.

As I stated, believing is seeing. You don't don't believe I was ever an atheist, so you don't see what's in front of your eyes. You'd rather believe this is some huge wind-up, or me trying to take the metaphysical high ground. Thomas, I was an atheist from the age of 11, when I had a little epiphany at Sunday school, when they tried to tell me that Methuselah lived for 969 years, until a vision I received at the age of 38. That's 27 years of atheism. I was an agnostic atheist at points; but most of the time I was a fairly convinced atheist. I hesitate to say gnostic atheist, but very, very close to it. The issue was settled for me by my early thirties - life's a bitch and then you die - and I accepted it.

Shrunk wrote:

Fenrir wrote:You'd do a lot better if you didn't wave around ignorance of probability quite so freely.

You only have one bible to sample. You can only sample it once.

The probability of rolling 6 sixes in a row is exactly the same as that if rolling any other specific combination, say 155263 or 443614.

Funnily enough your claims for god are exactly the opposite to the arguments used by the "probability of reality is 1 in a really big number therefore god" crowd.

Even funnier both arguments are equally fallacious.

If I understand correctly, among the many errors BT makes is concluding from the (correct) premise that you are more likely to pick the one red ball out of nine in ten tries than in one, that it is less probable for the first ball you pull out to be red than for the tenth one. In each case the odds are 1/9.

I agree. What the fuck are you guys trying to pin on me now?

blue triangle wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Fenrir wrote:You'd do a lot better if you didn't wave around ignorance of probability quite so freely.

You only have one bible to sample. You can only sample it once.

The probability of rolling 6 sixes in a row is exactly the same as that if rolling any other specific combination, say 155263 or 443614.

Funnily enough your claims for god are exactly the opposite to the arguments used by the "probability of reality is 1 in a really big number therefore god" crowd.

Even funnier both arguments are equally fallacious.

If I understand correctly, among the many errors BT makes is concluding from the (correct) premise that you are more likely to pick the one red ball out of nine in ten tries than in one, that it is less probable for the first ball you pull out to be red than for the tenth one. In each case the odds are 1/9.

I agree. What the fuck are you guys trying to pin on me now?

blue triangle wrote:I said that if you run a large number of trials with different texts, you would expect a clustering of hits at around verse 90000.

blue triangle wrote:As for your second assertion, using the binomial formula, I reckon the following odds for hitting 31415 in 20000 verses, 40000 verses, 60000 verses, etc, up to 200000 verses

p (20000) = 0.176
p (40000) = 0.283
p (60000) = 0.341
p (80000) = 0.365
p (100000) = 0.366
p (120000) = 0.353
p (140000) = 0.330
p (160000) = 0.303
p (180000) = 0.273
p (200000) = 0.244

The maximum probability is at just over 90000 verses in. In other words there is a gentle distribution curve with the peak there (and a positive skew, as expected when the minimum is zero and the maximum infinity). So I have to insist you're wrong there. In other words, if you tested text after text you would see that there would indeed be a clustering of hits at around 90000 words (assuming you had texts that long). It's more gentle than I expected, mind you.

I don't see what's to pin. He accurately described a mistake that's been made, repeated and elaborated upon.

I'm *hoping* that one of your later posts was an acknowledgement that this mistake had been identified.

Maybe if someone's first language was that of dolphins, I'd be willing to generously concede that this might impact on their ability to both marshal arguments and write coherently.