Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 16 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 159
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,369

    The Bible Wheel, Numerology, and Cognitive Bias

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I have been thinking a lot about the Bible Wheel and the numerology (holographs). I can see now that selection bias played a central role in both.
    I find it VERY curious that you would come to such a conclusion now. You mean to tell me that after 15 years of defending the bible wheel and claiming nobody has been able to refute it, all of a sudden WHEN SOMEONE BEGINS USING IT TO POINT OUT HOW IT DEMONSTRATES THE SUPERNATURAL ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE *REGARDLESS* OF THE "NEGATIVE" TRAITS OF THE BIBLICAL GOD, you now claim it's a result of "selection bias"??? Now be careful with my words. I'm not saying you didn't use the bible wheel before as evidence for the supernatural origin of the bible (you clearly did). What I'm saying is AFTER you concluded the "negative" traits of the biblical God = The biblical God doesn't exist, you never had someone come along (as far as I know) that forced the issue that I've been raising (namely, the "negative" traits of the biblical God has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not he exists). So that makes me highly suspicious that you would all of a sudden start claiming the bible wheel is now a result of "selection bias", especially because you're clearly not just a nontheist but a radical ANTITHEIST.
    Hey there Gambini,

    I'm really glad you responded to my comment about cognitive bias. It's something I've been thinking about a lot lately, and it really helps to bounce ideas off someone skeptical of my skepticism. Of course, I'm very skeptical of your skepticism of my skepticism because a lot of your numerology and arguments for the the Bible display a tremendous amount of cognitive bias. So it looks like we can both benefit from our mutual skepticism. Welcome to the Skeptic's Zone!

    Now it's really important that you try to speak clearly and not misrepresent what I say. The fact that "selection bias" played a role in both the Bible Wheel and numerology is incontrovertible. Nothing could be more obvious, as I explained in the post to which you responded. But you misrepresented my statement when you said that I "claim it's [the Bible Wheel] a result of selection bias." I did not say that it was a RESULT of selection bias. I said "selection bias played a central role." Please forgive me for speaking plainly, but your posts are saturated with misrepresentations like that, which make meaningful discourse very difficult and suggest that you are a very sloppy thinker. Look at all the words I had to write to correct that one error of yours. It get's very tedious. I do hope you will try harder to articulate your thoughts more clearly.

    And this is very important to the topic at hand, because sloppy thinking and misrepresentation of your opponent's views (strawmen) is one of the primary ways folks protect themselves from seeing and admitting the cognitive biases that they use to rationalize the COGNITIVE DISSONANCE that constantly alerts them to the fact that their beliefs are in fact false and delusional. So please, try to think carefully with me. We have a great opportunity here.

    Another error is your assertion that I am a "radical ANTITHEIST." That is not true, and you know it because I have explained my position many times on this forum, and I explained myself directly to you a couple days ago when you lied about me by saying that am an "Atheist ZEALOT." As I explained, I am an "agnostic atheist" which means I do not assert that there is no god of any kind because such knowledge is beyond any human, and I am not a theist, so I am by definition an atheist. This simply means that I reject all the theistic style gods humans ever proposed, just as you do, save one. Please stop misrepresenting me. It reflects bad on you and makes rational discourse impossible. Again, look at how many words I have to write to correct your error. It get's very tedious.

    To move on to a more substantial point: The "negative traits" of the Biblegod was only one of the reasons I concluded the he does not exist. The most important reason is that, contrary to the uniform testimony of the Bible, the Biblegod cannot be trusted. Can you name a single thing that anyone can actually TRUST the Biblegod to do for them in this life? Nope. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. It's almost as if he didn't exist! <hint, hint, wink> People who trust the Biblegod for the health of their children end up with dead children and manslaughter convictions. If Biblegod were half as trustworthy as your average dentist there would be no debate about his existence. Therefore, the central claim of the Bible is proven false, and the only rational choice is to reject it.

    It is important for you to know the real reasons for my rejection of the Biblegod if you want to help me see the "errors of my way."

    Now as for the immorality of the Biblegod - that problem does not stand in isolation. It is part and parcel with all the scientific errors, logical absurdities, and primitive superstitions contained in the Bible. When taken as a whole, it is obvious that the best explanation is that the Bible was written by ignorant men with primitive beliefs. The Bible is indistinguishable from other ancient books in this regard. I find your suggestion that the immorality of God "has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not he exists" absurd. The Bible adamantly asserts that the Biblegod is just and righteous even as it presents him as unjust and unrighteous. Both cannot be true. Therefore, the only rational response is to reject both the Bible and it's god as false.

    And this brings us to the central topic of this thread. If the Bible and its god are false, how then do we explain the Bible Wheel and the numerology? The answer should be obvious. It is a demonstrable fact that 99.9999% of all numerology is pure bullshit based fundamentally on cognitive biases like selection bias, cherry picking, rationalization, confirmation bias, and so forth. Therefore, the first thing any rational person would do when confronted with the Bible Wheel and my numerology is to ask: Did cognitive biases play any role in forming and confirming those patterns? The answer is an unequivocal and incontrovertible "yes." When I first began studying numerology, I had nothing but selection bias to work with. I would scan the numerical values of many words and find "hits" that fit a pattern that seemed meaningful to me. The vast majority of the words I examined did not fit any pattern I could see, so I ignored them. This is the definition of selection bias. Likewise, my study of the Bible Wheel involved scanning the books on each spoke looking for connections. That too is the definition of selection bias. Does this mean that the "hits" did not indicate design? Not necessarily. That's the question that needs to be answered. Merely listing a bunch of "hits" as you do proves nothing. The only way to discern between chance and design is to examine ALL the data - including both the hits and the misses. It's a daunting task. I tried to do that in the early stages of my research. I wrote a program to record all the hits and misses but found it an impossible task, so I gave up and only recorded the hits. This means that I may have fallen into a classic delusion created by selection bias. I hope this thread will help determine if this is the case or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Theoretically, I could see how you could raise the possibility that the themes under the 22 spokes in the bible wheel might be the result of "selection bias", but how about the fact that the MATHEMATICAL DESIGN in the molecular masses of the very amino acids of life CORRESPOND with the semantical AND geometrical design in the very first verse of the bible??? That has NOTHING to do with selection bias.
    Personally, I have never been impressed by the counting of atoms in those molecules and they have never played any role in my studies. There may be something to it, but if so I haven't seen anything convincing as yet. It's irrelevant to my quest to determine if the Bible Wheel and the numerology that I studied shows any signs of design. That's all I am interested in testing right now.

    Your comment displays a particular kind of bias I see frequently in your posts. You use established results like the Creation holograph to lend credence to claims that would not stand on their own. That's a significant error in thinking that bloats your sense of "evidence" beyond what is justified by the facts. We need to examine each claim on its own merits.

    Most of your posts, such as the one I am answering, contain examples of this error. You throw together the good, the bad, and ugly into one shotgun blast of "proof" to create an illusion that the evidence is much stronger than it really is. I've explained this to you many times but you just don't seem to get it. Your proof would be a thousand times stronger if you focused on the really strong results (like the holographs) and omitted the stuff that is dubious at best (and which is often total bullshit, as I've proven many times). In the world of "proof" less is more. It's odd that you don't realize that intelligent folks typically ignore (for good reason) someone who mixes error with truth the way you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    And how about the MATHEMATICAL DESIGN in the breastplate of the high priest, the "Star Of Israel" pattern or the first Prime Magic Square (ALL of which is mathematically linked to the MATHEMATICAL DESIGN in Genesis 1:1)??? NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with selection bias (the numbers are clearly there).
    As I've explained before, I've never seen any significance in "magic squares."

    The numerical patterns on the breastplate is intriguing, but there is a selection bias in its design. I wonder how many attempts were made before one with this pattern was found? It is not patterned on any list of names explicitly given in scripture. The list was designed by the person who made the design. He chose to omit Levi and replace Joesph with his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh, and move Benjamin from the last to the ten position in birth order.

    Your comments are a perfect example of the bias I described above. You are presenting a shotgun of mixed results in an attempt to create an illusion of "overwhelming design." If you really want to convince me, you must focus upon one thing at a time. Less is more. If you can establish one point, then it will stand like a rock upon which you can build. When I see your scattered approach it strikes me as an example of sloppy biased thinking and so is worse than useless because it actually serves as evidence AGAINST your position rather than for it. You need to prove that your results are REAL and based on PRINCIPLED THINKING that is mathematically legitimate and that you have considered the relevant probabilities. Merely asserting "that can't be a coincidence" is not only meaningless, but evidence that you don't know what you are talking about (as I have proven many times with careful mathematical analysis of your claims).

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Or how about the fact that there are 22 + 1 word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 that are perfect multiples of 37 (with EACH of the seven words of Genesis 1:1 being used EXACTLY 12 times in making up those perfect multiples of 37, with 12 being the PRIME ORDER of 37 itself)??? That has NOTHING to do with selection bias.
    That has everything to do with selection bias. I have seen you relate dozens of numbers to Genesis 1:1 in dozens of ways. You have not shown that those coincidences are meaningful. That's what you need to do .... in a slow, thoughtful, principled manner. Do you really expect me to believe credulous crap? It won't happen. Merely claiming "look at these coincidences! They must be designed!" strikes me as absurd and as a perfect example of cognitive bias. It is the primary error of all the fallacious numerologists in the world. You really need to think about this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    And even with the bible wheel itself ...

    How do you explain the STATISTICAL HITS of relevant words appearing under certain spokes???
    I'm really glad you brought that up. It's an excellent example of my own selection bias. I only reported the stats that fit the pattern. If you examine the statistics of the distribution of ALL the words in the whole Bible, the stats show no design. I simply I know, because I studied them for years hoping to find evidence. There are some intriguing coincidences, but nothing that would statistically prove design.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    How do you explain the fact that the odds of a symmetric sevenfold canon like the bible wheel is 1 in 688,324???
    Off the top of my head, I see a variety of possible explanations:
    1. Designed by God.
    2. Designed by some other superhuman intelligent agent
    3. Designed (perhaps subconsciously) by the scribes who kept rearranging the books to fit patterns they liked (there is much evidence that this happened)
    4. Subconscious manifestation of the group mind (not unlike dream mandalas)
    5. What pattern? So what? (This is the response I got from many if not most Christians)
    6. That's Preposterous! (Direct quote from William Lane Craig when asked for his opinion)
    7. Chance (shit happens).
    8. All of the above
    9. None of the above
    10. Some combination of the above

    So what do you think about the coincidences between Lincoln and Kennedy? What are the chances?

    And what do you think of this site - Spurious Correlations - that shows "amazing" coincidences in large datasets?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    How do you explain the fact that Isaiah is placed MIDWAY between the giving of the Torah, and the completion of the New Testament and the structure of the BOOK of Isaiah happens to correspond with the large scale structure of the 66 book canon of the bible (as does the bible wheel)???
    As I presume you know, the Isaiah-Bible Correlation is one of the primary areas I studied. It's a huge part of my original website. Unfortunately, this kind of "correlation" is extremely susceptible to cognitive bias. I have met TWO people who came up with different patterns and were absolutely convinced that they had total proof of the divine design of the Bible. One guy had simply made up his own order, but the other guy used the order of the Tanach for the OT and the early manuscript order for the NT. His stuff was disturbing because I noticed some of his correlations were much better than what we see in the standard KJV order. For example, in the Tanach, Isaiah is book 12 and in Isaiah 12 we read of drawing from the "wells of salvation" (Isaiah means "the lord is savior.") This is much better than Isaiah 23 which doesn't have anything linking to Isaiah. I was always very disappointed with that. And then there's Isaiah 13 which is all about the fall of Babylon which corresponds very well with Jeremiah which is book 13 in the Tanach. Of course, Isaiah 24 correlates well too so it's not so bad. UPSHOT - lots of cognitive bias in this kind of study.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    How do you explain the fact that a CIRCLE (the bible wheel = A CIRCLE) with an area of 31102 (the number of VERSES in the bible = 31102) divides up into 7 segments (the bible wheel = 7 natural divisions) with each having an area of 66.66 x 66.66 (the number of BOOKS in the bible = 66)???
    That's curious, but never really impressed me much. Like I said, you should drop the shotgun approach and work with me to establish a foundation of results that actually demand explanation. A random set of random results, no matter how "intriguing" the numbers may be, can't prove that the Bible is designed.

    And here's the most important fact: You generally accept without criticism anything that supports your believe in the Bible, and reject exactly the same kind of evidence that would support Islam or some other religion. That is BIAS. You can't deny it. I've seen you do it a hundred times. Don't you care if your beliefs are true or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    How do you explain the fact that a CIRCLE (the bible wheel = A CIRCLE) with an area of 31102 (the number of VERSES in the bible = 31102) divides up into 22 segments (the bible wheel consists of 22 spokes) with each having an area of 11.89 x 118.9 (the number of CHAPTERS in the bible = 1189)??? Further, notice that the very word from which we get BIBLE = The FIRST word of the New Testament = A numerical value of *314* ...

    22/7 = 3.14, which is the CLOSEST approximation of *PI* under 100 (the bible wheel = A *CIRCLE* and consists of *22* spokes, corresponding with the *22* letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and *7* natural divisions).
    All that is very intriguing if you begin with a belief in the Bible. But you know it proves nothing because if you found similar things in the Quran you wouldn't become a Muslim. For example, the Quran states that the Number 19 rules over it, and it has 114 = 6 x 19 and 6 is the first PERFECT number and 19 is hexagonal. That's PROOF, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    When you take all that together, I don't see how the bible wheel can be dismissed as an example of "selection bias". And the fact that you got a bunch of misses during your massive research doesn't change the fact that the OVERWHELMING number of overall CONNECTIONS under the 22 spokes are there. You see what I mean? That IN ITSELF is mathematically significant. So it really boils down to this ...
    That's your primary error. The idea of taking all the CONFETTI of numbers and ideas "together" as if they all "confirmed" each other. That's a fundamental bias that makes your judgment suspect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    The large scale structure of the bible (the bible wheel) is there for the whole world to see. So if you're now going to claim the OVERWHELMING overall number of CONNECTIONS under the 22 spokes are a product of "selection bias", then THE BURDEN OF PROOF is on you to provide a SIMILAR example of connections in a random text (and the same thing goes for the "Creation Holograph" of Genesis 1:1-5/John 1:1-5).
    There you go - declaring that your confetti of patterns is "OVERWHELMING." That to me looks like pure bias.

    As for the burden of proof - you've got it backwards. How many "connections" did I report in my book and on this site? A tiny fraction of the total POSSIBLE connections given the 31,102 verses of the Bible. Therefore, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims there IS a pattern. Sorry. That's the only intelligent response to claims of "patterns" found in "holy books" involving numerology. Remember - 99.99999% of all such claims are total crap and demonstrably delusions based on bias. So why should my little religious thingy be any different? Especially if selection bias played a central role in its development?

    Again, I'm really glad you are working with me on this. I look forward to really digging down deep to see what is, or is not, the case.

    Shine on!



    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,369
    Deafening silence ...

    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,369
    Yo! Gambini!

    It would be great if you would answer my post.

    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Yo! Gambini!

    It would be great if you would answer my post.


    Hey Richard


    I'm glad you reminded me of this post. This is my first time seeing your "deafening silence" remark


    I didn't respond to your first post because it was too long and would require a pretty long reply back. I'm going to try and set some time aside this weekend. As much as I hate doing long replies, there's just way too many problems I see in your post to ignore.



    Catch you later



    BINI

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,369
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Hey Richard


    I'm glad you reminded me of this post. This is my first time seeing your "deafening silence" remark


    I didn't respond to your first post because it was too long and would require a pretty long reply back. I'm going to try and set some time aside this weekend. As much as I hate doing long replies, there's just way too many problems I see in your post to ignore.



    Catch you later



    BINI
    You could always just comment on one point at a time you know. Personally, I think that is a much better strategy. That way we can focus on a single point and actually "take it to the mat." Most of your posts are so scattered that it's impossible to follow your train of thought, let alone effectively answer (without writing a book). And it gives you an opportunity to ignore points that you can't answer. You should just pick ONE POINT that you think is most devastating and present that. And then I will answer that ONE POINT and maybe we will be able to establish the truth of the matter.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    So please, try to think carefully with me. We have a great opportunity here.

    Sounds good to me.



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    Another error is your assertion that I am a "radical ANTITHEIST." That is not true, and you know it because I have explained my position many times on this forum, and I explained myself directly to you a couple days ago when you lied about me by saying that I am an "Atheist ZEALOT." As I explained, I am an "agnostic atheist" which means I do not assert that there is no god of any kind because such knowledge is beyond any human, and I am not a theist, so I am by definition an atheist. This simply means that I reject all the theistic style gods humans ever proposed, just as you do, save one. Please stop misrepresenting me. It reflects bad on you and makes rational discourse impossible. Again, look at how many words I have to write to correct your error. It get's very tedious.

    The fact that you're an agnostic doesn't change the fact that you're an antitheist. You don't have to be POSITIVE about the nonexistence of God in order to be an antitheist. Your comments THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE FORUM bear witness to my claim that you're a radical antitheist. I'm not trying to be rude or misrepresent you. At the very least, you're RADICALLY against the biblical portrayal of God. So right off the jump, I already know you'd rather not have the biblical God to be real. I just find it curious that you would do a 180, after defending the bible wheel for 15 years (and claiming nobody has been able to refute it), and claim the entire design is now a massive fail. My suspicion arises primarily for two reasons ...

    1) We already know you're an antitheist (especially with regards to biblical theism).
    2) As soon as I pointed out that the "negative" traits of the biblical God have no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not he actually exists, you hit me with the 180 and claim the bible wheel is flawed ...


    I think you're starting to realize that *ALL* (I repeat, *ALL*) of the problems you've EVER raised against the biblical God can be classified as "negative" traits, which again, have absolutely no bearing whatsoever with regards to whether or not the biblical God exists. For example, ALL the "contradictions" or "errors" would only point to his FALLIBILITY. There isn't a SINGLE problem you've EVER raised about the biblical God that cannot be classified as simply "negative" or "imperfect" traits. And it's very curious that AS SOON AS I POINTED THIS OUT, you do a 180.


    Another point ...


    ATHEISM IS NOT A "LACK OF BELIEF"! That is *NOT* the UNIVERSAL definition of atheism. You can't give me a SINGLE recognized dictionary that DOESN'T define atheism as the BELIEF that there is no God but I can give you several recognized dictionaries that DOESN'T define atheism as a "LACK OF BELIEF". For example, the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Merriam Webster Compact Oxford English Dictionary and the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary DO NOT have the "LACK OF BELIEF" definition. In other words, MY definition of atheism is UNIVERSAL. Yours ISN'T.


    Btw, the very reason many atheists want to hide under the umbrella of "lacking a belief" fails in itself. They use this to place the entire burden of proof on the theist, which is a waste of time because GENERAL THEISM IS THE DEFAULT POSITION *REGARDLESS* OF HOW YOU DEFINE ATHEISM. I don't have to demonstrate to the solipsist that the external world exists. He has to demonstrate to me that the external world doesn't exist (and there are just as many, if not more, solipsists worldwide as there are nontheists). Your response to this is to claim that doesn't prove God exists. BUT THAT'S A RED HERRING! Nobody is saying the fact that general theism is the default position = God exists. The POINT is that since general theism is the default position, it is IRRATIONAL to reject it UNTIL you can present POSITIVE evidence against general theism. Just like it is IRRATIONAL to reject the idea that the external world exists UNLESS someone can provide POSITIVE evidence against it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    The Biblegod cannot be trusted. Can you name a single thing that anyone can actually TRUST the Biblegod to do for them in this life? Nope. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. It's almost as if he didn't exist! <hint, hint, wink>

    The trustworthiness of the biblical God has no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not he exists. And you're not even making an argument here. This is nothing more than your OPINION. There are *BILLIONS* of people who believe their prayers have been answered (and yes, God can answer the prayers of non-Christians). Your milk jug analogy is a complete strawman caricature of evidential arguments for answered prayer. An evidential argument for answered prayer only applies to EXTRAORDINARY incidents of answered prayer, of which there are thousands.



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    Does this mean that the "hits" did not indicate design? Not necessarily. That's the question that needs to be answered. Merely listing a bunch of "hits" as you do proves nothing. The only way to discern between chance and design is to examine ALL the data - including both the hits and the misses. It's a daunting task. I tried to do that in the early stages of my research. I wrote a program to record all the hits and misses but found it an impossible task, so I gave up and only recorded the hits. This means that I may have fallen into a classic delusion created by selection bias. I hope this thread will help determine if this is the case or not.

    Hold on, the burden of proof is on NEITHER one of us to demonstrate the OBSERVABLE large scale structure of the bible wheel is a random phenomenon. If someone is going to claim the OBSERVABLE patterns are random, then they need to get a RANDOM text, break it down into three sets around 22 spokes that are EACH assigned the same 22 meanings behind the 22 Hebrew alphabets (as well as the 8 keywords for each 22 letters from the Psalm 119 pattern) and produce the same amount of interlocking correlations found in the bible wheel. If you claim the pattern is random, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is.



    TO BE CONTINUED ...
    Last edited by Gambini; 08-23-2014 at 05:56 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Personally, I have never been impressed by the counting of atoms in those molecules and they have never played any role in my studies. There may be something to it, but if so I haven't seen anything convincing as yet. It's irrelevant to my quest to determine if the Bible Wheel and the numerology that I studied shows any signs of design. That's all I am interested in testing right now.

    The mathematical links between Genesis 1:1 and the very genome of life is even more powerful than the bible wheel ...


    •The semantical AND geometrical structure of THE VERY FIRST VERSE IN THE BIBLE, which INTRODUCES the creation account, breaks down to (666 + 666 + 666) + 703.


    •The 4 x 5 table of the 20 amino acids of life, which is arranged according to their chemical properties, CLEARLY consists of mathematical design that happens to CORRESPOND with the semantical/geometrical structure of Genesis 1:1.


    •(666 + 666 + 666) = The *37th* composite number and 703 = The *37th* Triangular number.


    •666 + 703 = The *37th* Square number.


    •666 = The distance between the *37th* order of EVERY successive polygon (to infinity) and 703 = The *37th* order of the FIRST polygon.


    •Genesis 1:1 + *37* = The nucleon sum of the 20 amino acids of life.


    •The PRIME FACTORS of Genesis 1:1 = *37* x *73*.


    •Genesis 1:1 = The *37th* Hexagon AND the *73rd* Triangle.


    •We KNOW Genesis 1:1 is mathematically rooted in the number *37* through the 22 + 1 word value combinations that are perfect multiples of *37* (WAY beyond random chance) with EACH of the seven words in Genesis 1:1 being used EXACTLY 12 times in making up those perfect multiples of *37* (12 = The PRIME ORDER of *37*). In fact, Peter Bluer has demonstrated that this feature DISAPPEARS when Genesis 1:1 is translated into OTHER languages with different gematria values for the different languages used.


    •The fact that there is an intentional design in the word value combinations of Genesis 1:1 is FURTHER CORROBORATED by the ARITHMETIC PROGRESSION of word value combinations that are perfect multiples of the ONLY word value in Genesis 1:1 that is PRIME (401 x 1, 401 x 2, 401 x 3, 401 x 4 and 401 x 5). And this is even MORE beyond random chance than the 22 + 1 perfect multiples of *37*!!! So there is CLEARLY an intentional design built into the word value combinations of Genesis 1:1.


    •According to Tidjani Negari's paper, the proportion of the amino acid PROLINE (which is the most UNIQUE of the 20 amino acids of life AND is the "KEY" that opens up the mathematical design in the genome arranged around the triple repdigits 111 through 999 in BASE TEN) in the kinked helices of the genome = *3.7*%.


    •The formation of a peptide bond (the condensation reaction) produces a system, constituted by two amino acids and a water molecule, exhibiting a net dipole moment evaluated to *3.7* Debye.


    •The human mitochondrial genome encodes for EXACTLY *37* genes.


    •There are *3.7* amino acid residues per helix turn.


    •The average molecular weight for the 20 amino acids of life is precisely *37* x *3.7*.


    •The difference between the number of protons and neutrons in the 20 amino acids of life = The sum of all the PRIMES up to *37*.


    •The sum of the atomic numbers of the different kinds of atoms in DNA = *37* and the total number of atoms in the different kinds of molecules in DNA = *73* (the PRIME FACTORS of Genesis 1:1 = *37* x *73*).



    This is an UNDENIABLE link between the mathematical design in Genesis 1:1 and the mathematical design in the very genome of life. ALL of this information (and much more) *CAN* be taken together to argue for that (rather than taking them each as isolated cases) BECAUSE they are ALL found in Genesis 1:1 and the very genome of life (the links between them means that the mathematical design in one of them CORROBORATES the mathematical design in the other and vice versa). They each stand alone as evidence of mathematical design, but the links between them adds ADDITIONAL support to the mathematical design in both Genesis 1:1 and the very genome of life.



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    Your proof would be a thousand times stronger if you focused on the really strong results (like the holographs)

    I am focusing on the strong results. Obviously I don't place everything on the same level. Things like the Creation Holograph or the link between Genesis 1:1 and the genome of life are very strong results.



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    I've explained before, I've never seen any significance in "magic squares."

    Do you deny that the first prime magic square is NATURALLY encoded with the number *37* (having *37* at its very CENTER)???


    Do you deny that the first prime magic square is NATURALLY encoded with the numbers 888, 1480 and 2368 (888 = Jesus, 1480 = Christ and 2368 = Jesus Christ)???


    Do you deny that the first prime magic square is NATURALLY encoded with the number 333 (2368 + 333 = Genesis 1:1 AND the perimeter of the Genesis 1:1/John 1:1 Triangle = 333)???


    Do you deny that 666 is part of the semantical/geometrical break down in Genesis 1:1 and that 666 itself is the 6th magic square (Genesis 1:1 INTRODUCES the "six days" of creation)???


    Do you deny that the perimeter of the Genesis 1:1 Triangle = The first MULTIPLICATION magic square (hence, the PERIMETER of the Genesis 1:1 Triangle = The FIRST multiplication magic square and the PERIMETER of the Genesis 1:1/John 1:1 Triangle = The FIRST prime magic square)???



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    The numerical patterns on the breastplate is intriguing, but there is a selection bias in its design. I wonder how many attempts were made before one with this pattern was found? It is not patterned on any list of names explicitly given in scripture. The list was designed by the person who made the design. He chose to omit Levi and replace Joesph with his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh, and move Benjamin from the last to the ten position in birth order.

    The 12 names on the breastplate follow the NATURAL ORDER OF BIRTHS of all 12 names on the list. It is perfectly permissible to omit Levi (since scripture ITSELF separates him as the progenitor of the priestly class) AND to replace Joseph with Ephraim and Manasseh (since scripture ITSELF does in certain cases when outlining the 12 tribes) ...


    •The sum of the 12 names = 3700 (notice that 12 = The PRIME ORDER of *37*).


    •The sum of every ODD positioned name value on the breastplate = Exactly HALF of 3700 and the sum of every EVEN positioned name value on the breastplate = Exactly HALF of 3700.


    •The book of Numbers *3:7* records the Levites being presented before AARON (the FIRST HIGH PRIEST under the mosaic law) and Numbers *3:7* happens to be the 3700th verse in the bible (the sum of the breastplate = 3700).


    •We saw that there is an intentional design in the word value combinations of Genesis 1:1. Well, the total number of word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 = 127 AND the total number of name value combinations on the breastplate that are perfect multiples of *37* = 127!!! Further, the total numerical value of those 127 perfect multiples of *37* = 2368 x 100 (2368 = JESUS CHRIST and the high priest was a TYPE of JESUS CHRIST).


    There is MUCH more regarding the breastplate but I'll leave it at that for now.



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    If you really want to convince me, you must focus upon one thing at a time. Less is more.

    That's a bit difficult when you hit me with a really long reply



    TO BE CONTINUED ...
    Last edited by Gambini; 08-23-2014 at 09:49 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    That has everything to do with selection bias. I have seen you relate dozens of numbers to Genesis 1:1 in dozens of ways.

    You're actually telling me that the 22 + 1 word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 that are perfect multiples of *37* has "everything to do with selection bias"??? WHAT??? That is WAY beyond random chance AND is corroborated by the ARITHMETIC PROGRESSION of word value combinations that are perfect multiples of the ONLY *PRIME* of Genesis 1:1, which is the CENTRAL word value out of the seven Genesis 1:1 word values AND is the ONLY "untranslatable word". That's even MORE evidence that there is an intentional design built into the word value combinations of Genesis 1:1.



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    Off the top of my head, I see a variety of possible explanations:
    1. Designed by God.
    2. Designed by some other superhuman intelligent agent
    3. Designed (perhaps subconsciously) by the scribes who kept rearranging the books to fit patterns they liked (there is much evidence that this happened)
    4. Subconscious manifestation of the group mind (not unlike dream mandalas)
    5. What pattern? So what? (This is the response I got from many if not most Christians)
    6. That's Preposterous! (Direct quote from William Lane Craig when asked for his opinion)
    7. Chance (shit happens).
    8. All of the above
    9. None of the above
    10. Some combination of the above

    1) That is the ONLY logical conclusion that accounts for the bible wheel because the bible proclaims its God from A to Z and records a long history of this God interacting with the most unique people known throughout the universe (the Israelites).

    2) That is an ad hoc invention to AVOID the fact that the entire bible proclaims its God from A to Z and records a long history of this God interacting with the most unique people known throughout the universe (the Israelites).

    3) That doesn't explain the huge complexity and interlocking correlations within the large scale pattern of the bible wheel.

    4) That is an ad hoc invention with ZERO evidence for "group minds" (you're scaring me, Richard). My position isn't ad hoc at all BECAUSE the bible proclaims its God from A to Z and records a long history of this God interacting with the most unique people throughout the holy universe (the Israelites).

    5) That only shows the person is ignorant of your findings. In fact, I myself used this when I first came upon your discovery. For years I thought it was goofy bullshit until I actually looked into all your bible wheel articles and ordered your book.

    6) That's either an argument from personal incredulity or just ignorance of the bible wheel itself (Craig commented on your discovery? I didn't even know that).

    7) The burden of proof is on the person making this claim to DEMONSTRATE the pattern is random.

    8) This is incoherent since it CAN'T be "all of the above" (that would be contradictory).

    9) If it's none of the above, then it logically follows the pattern is real AND the burden of proof is on the person to present another alternative AND demonstrate why it should override the plain text of the bible itself (which proclaims its God from A to Z and records a long history of this God interacting with the most unique people throughout the universe, the Israelites).

    10) Most of these "explanations" would contradict each other and the ONLY one that isn't ad hoc is the first one.



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    So what do you think about the coincidences between Lincoln and Kennedy? What are the chances?

    That's clearly selection bias because you're ALREADY starting with two presidents who happened to be assassinated and then searching for RANDOM occurrences in both their lives. *NOTHING* about the bible wheel is random. There are RULES relating to the meanings behind each of the 22 letters ruling over each of the 22 spokes AND there is a correspondence with the keywords that begin each stanza in the 22 divisions of Psalm 119 (which is alphabetically designed).



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    And what do you think of this site - Spurious Correlations - that shows "amazing" coincidences in large datasets?

    That has absolutely NOTHING to do with biblical gematria. Biblical gematria involves mathematical links of *RELATED* words that have significant meaning to each other. This site you posted is meaningless. None of those things have any relation to each other.



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    As I presume you know, the Isaiah-Bible Correlation is one of the primary areas I studied. It's a huge part of my original website. Unfortunately, this kind of "correlation" is extremely susceptible to cognitive bias. I have met TWO people who came up with different patterns and were absolutely convinced that they had total proof of the divine design of the Bible. One guy had simply made up his own order, but the other guy used the order of the Tanach for the OT and the early manuscript order for the NT. His stuff was disturbing because I noticed some of his correlations were much better than what we see in the standard KJV order. For example, in the Tanach, Isaiah is book 12 and in Isaiah 12 we read of drawing from the "wells of salvation" (Isaiah means "the lord is savior.") This is much better than Isaiah 23 which doesn't have anything linking to Isaiah. I was always very disappointed with that. And then there's Isaiah 13 which is all about the fall of Babylon which corresponds very well with Jeremiah which is book 13 in the Tanach. Of course, Isaiah 24 correlates well too so it's not so bad. UPSHOT - lots of cognitive bias in this kind of study.

    It's not cognitive bias when you look at THE WHOLE PICTURE. There are 66 chapters in Isaiah, who's timeline is placed MIDWAY between the giving of the Torah and the completion of the New Testament (there are 66 books in the bible) AND Isaiah happens to be the FIRST book in the SECOND cycle of the bible wheel (the MIDDLE cycle). There are TWO natural divisions of Isaiah and TWO natural divisions of the bible (the OT and the NT). The first natural division of Isaiah consists of 39 chapters (corresponding with the 39 books of the OT) and the second natural division of Isaiah consists of 27 chapters (corresponding with the 27 books of the NT). The FIRST chapter of Isaiah opens with a reference to "the heavens and the earth" and the LAST chapter of Isaiah closes with a PROPHECY of a NEW heavens and a NEW earth (just as the bible opens in Genesis with a reference to "the heavens and the earth" and closes in Revelation with a PROPHECY of a NEW heavens and a NEW earth). The 40th chapter of Isaiah (corresponding with the first book of the New Testament) opens with the FIRST BIBLICAL OCCURRENCE of the word "maveseret", which means "bringer of good tidings" and is translated in Greek as the root word of *GOSPEL*. The 40th chapter of Isaiah also opens with THE VERY WORDS SPOKEN BY JOHN THE BAPTIST IN MATTHEW (where he announces the prophesied messiah). The first 39 chapters of Isaiah is known as "the book of judgment" (corresponding with the theme of the 39 books of the OT) and the last 27 chapters of Isaiah is known as "the book of comfort" (corresponding with the theme of the 27 books of the NT).


    And notice this is independent CORROBORATING evidence of the bible wheel because it points to a large scale design in the 66 books of the bible.



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    And here's the most important fact: You generally accept without criticism anything that supports your belief in the Bible, and reject exactly the same kind of evidence that would support Islam or some other religion.

    Not true. For example, I reject Panin's heptadic discoveries and Michael Drosnin's bible code (although I do affirm the MACRO ELS codes from Ed Sherman, which I've NEVER seen Brendan McKay even address). In fact, I originally rejected the bible wheel itself even though I affirmed the divine inspiration of the bible (but that's because I never really looked into it and the pattern looked forced to me). Further, there are times where you pointed out I was wrong and I admitted my wrong, which shows I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong.



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    All that is very intriguing if you begin with a belief in the Bible. But you know it proves nothing because if you found similar things in the Quran you wouldn't become a Muslim. For example, the Quran states that the Number 19 rules over it, and it has 114 = 6 x 19 and 6 is the first PERFECT number and 19 is hexagonal. That's PROOF, right?

    Ugh ... Am I missing something? How does the fact that 6 is the first perfect number have ANY connection to the number 19??? And what does the fact that 19 is Hexagonal have anything to do with anything??? Where's the link??? I've looked into the alleged numeric patterns in the Qur'an. They are no different than Panin's heptadic discoveries. Why do I reject both??? BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN *DEMONSTRATED* THAT YOU CAN FIND THOSE SAME KINDS OF PATTERNS IN *RANDOM* TEXTS. This is NOT the case with the mathematical design in Genesis 1:1, the mathematical links between Genesis 1:1 and the very genome of life, the biblical holographs or the bible wheel.



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    The idea of taking all the CONFETTI of numbers and ideas "together" as if they all "confirmed" each other. That's a fundamental bias that makes your judgment suspect.

    That's a regular means of argumentation (making a CUMULATIVE case). And I'm not saying take UNRELATED pieces of information together. I'm saying take RELATED pieces of information together to make an overall case. For example, the structure of Isaiah CORROBORATES the bible wheel (and vice versa) in terms of demonstrating the supernatural origin of the 66 book canon of the bible because they are both inherent to the bible and BOTH make an INDEPENDENT evidential case for design in the large scale structure of the 66 book canon of the bible.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    As for the burden of proof - you've got it backwards. How many "connections" did I report in my book and on this site?

    No, I don't have it backwards at all. Again, THE BIBLE WHEEL PATTERN IS THERE. Now if you want to claim the bible wheel pattern is really RANDOM, then the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that you can get the same patterns in a RANDOM text.



    BINI aka The Mystic Meanie



    LONG LIVE THE BIBLE WHEEL!!!
    Last edited by Gambini; 08-23-2014 at 07:17 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,369
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    The fact that you're an agnostic doesn't change the fact that you're an antitheist. You don't have to be POSITIVE about the nonexistence of God in order to be an antitheist. Your comments THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE FORUM bear witness to my claim that you're a radical antitheist. I'm not trying to be rude or misrepresent you. At the very least, you're RADICALLY against the biblical portrayal of God. So right off the jump, I already know you'd rather not have the biblical God to be real. I just find it curious that you would do a 180, after defending the bible wheel for 15 years (and claiming nobody has been able to refute it), and claim the entire design is now a massive fail. My suspicious arises primarily for two reasons ...

    1) We already know you're an antitheist (especially with regards to biblical theism).
    2) As soon as I pointed out that the "negative" traits of the biblical God have no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not he actually exists, you hit me with the 180 and claim the bible wheel is flawed ...
    Wow. You just produced a textbook example of the Genetic Fallacy. The truth or falsehood of a proposition is independent of whether the person stating it is theist, atheist, antitheist, or whatever. And worse, your assertion is false. I am not an "antitheist" let alone a "radical antitheist." And worse still, you have not presented any evidence to support your assertion. And why haven't you? Because you can't, because your assertion is false. I have never written a word that would support your assertion. On the contrary, I have explicitly stated that I am an atheist because I am not a theist, and I am not a theist because I believe the concept is unwarranted and probably irrational. I have given reasons for my position, so I am a rational agnostic atheist. That's it. That's the truth. Your argument is based on a strawman caricature of my position (to add yet another logical sin to your ledger).

    Another falsehood in your post is your assertion that I concluded the Bible Wheel is flawed only after you presented your argument that the "negative traits of the biblical God have no bearing" on God's existence. On the contrary, I began talking about the flaws in the Bible Wheel nearly three years ago when I started a thread called An Evolutionary Explanation of the Bible Wheel. In that article, I explained how Rose had mentioned that "the Bible Wheel was not as perfect as I thought it was. She explained that though it might be "optimal" given the 66 books, it was no where near as good as it could have been if I could have edited those books myself to make them fit the pattern even better." That statement is true. And over the years since I wrote that article, I have studied how fallacies and cognitive biases like selection bias (cherry picking) and confirmation bias can create an illusion of design. It is now OBVIOUS to me that my PRIMARY evidence for the Bible Wheel was based on selection bias. I would scan each spoke for "hits" and ignore all the misses, which vastly outnumbered the hits. I reported only the "hits" and never even did an analysis of the lion's share of the data which consisted of misses. None of this was in response to your argument about the negative traits of God, which should be patently obvious to you anyway since you know that I reject your argument as fallacious (as I explain in more detail below).

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    I think you're starting to realize that *ALL* (I repeat, *ALL*) of the problems you've EVER raised against the biblical God can be classified as "negative" traits, which again, have absolutely no bearing whatsoever with regards to whether or not the biblical God exists. For example, ALL the "contradictions" or "errors" would only point to his FALLIBILITY. There isn't a SINGLE problem you've EVER raised about the biblical God that cannot be classified as simply "negative" traits. And it's very curious that AS SOON AS I POINTED THIS OUT, you do a 180.
    That's true, if you include "non-existence" as a "negative trait." The "contradictions and errors" in the Biblical description of God prove that the biblegod cannot exist, because his properties would be self-contradictory, and incoherent things cannot exist. That's the problem. The Bible states that God is good and just and then presents God as grossly immoral. It says that God is omniscient and then says that there are things that God does not know. Etc. etc. etc. The Biblical god is a logical impossibility. I am fully justified in my judgment.

    And again, your presentation of that lame argument had no influence of any kind on the development of my understanding concerning the cognitive biases and other errors in my presentation of the Bible Wheel. And even if it did, it wouldn't imply anything about the validity of my assertions. You fail on all points dude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    ATHEISM IS NOT A "LACK OF BELIEF"! That is *NOT* the UNIVERSAL definition of atheism. You can't give me a SINGLE recognized dictionary that DOESN'T define atheism as the BELIEF that there is no God but I can give you several recognized dictionaries that DOESN'T define atheism as a "LACK OF BELIEF". For example, the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Merriam Webster Compact Oxford English Dictionary and the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary DO NOT have the "LACK OF BELIEF" definition. In other words, MY definition of atheism is UNIVERSAL. Yours ISN'T.
    The meaning of words changes over time. I have explained what I mean when I call myself an atheist, so there is no reason for any confusion on that issue. If you think the word should be restricted to "strong atheists" who assert that there are no gods as a fact, then you can call me a "non-theist." I don't care. It means the same thing - I am not a theist. No knowledge comes from your meaningless haggling over semantics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Btw, the very reason many atheists want to hide under the umbrella of "lacking a belief" fails in itself. They use this to place the entire burden of proof on the theist, which is a waste of time because GENERAL THEISM IS THE DEFAULT POSITION *REGARDLESS* OF HOW YOU DEFINE ATHEISM. I don't have to demonstrate to the solipsist that the external world exists. He has to demonstrate to me that the external world doesn't exist (and there are just as many, if not more, solipsists worldwide as there are nontheists). Your response to this is to claim that doesn't prove God exists. BUT THAT'S A RED HERRING! Nobody is saying the fact that general theism is the default position = God exists. The POINT is that since general theism is the default position, it is IRRATIONAL to reject it UNTIL you can present POSITIVE evidence against general theism. Just like it is IRRATIONAL to reject the idea that the external world exists UNLESS someone can provide POSITIVE evidence against it.
    Your claim that the assumption of God's existence is the "default position" is total bullshit. The "default position" is that there is no reason to believe in any god because everyone rejects 99.9999% of all gods that have every been proposed and there is no reason to believe any god actually exists and many reasons to believe he does not exist. This is a perfect example of the primary religious delusion, the idea that God is trustworthy. Nothing could be more absurd. No one, not one person, can actually TRUST God to do anything for them in this life. Folks who trust God for the health of their children end up with dead children and manslaughter convictions. If God were half as trustworthy as the average dentist, there would be no debate about his existence. You assertion that the existence of God is the "default positions" is just as ludicrous and delusional as saying that "God is trustworthy." Your arguments are absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    The trustworthiness of the biblical God has no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not he exists. And you're not even making an argument here. This is nothing more than your OPINION. There are *BILLIONS* of people who believe their prayers have been answered (and yes, God can answer the prayers of non-Christians). Your milk jug analogy is a complete strawman caricature of evidential arguments for answered prayer. An evidential argument for answered prayer only applies to EXTRAORDINARY incidents of answered prayer, of which there are thousands.
    1) If God is not trustworthy, then he is not the god described in the Bible which means the god of the bible does not exist.

    2) It is not merely my opinion. It is a demonstrable fact that no person on planet earth can actually TRUST God to do anything in any particular situation. They can hope. They can pray. But they cannot TRUST that he will ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING. It appears you have no concept of what the word "trust" actually entails. To say someone is "trustworthy" means that you can trust the person to actually DO what he says he will do. God has said he will answer prayers, but no one can TRUST that he actually answers any prayer, unless you want to say his failure to answer is itself an answer. But that would be too moronic even for you.

    3) The fact that BILLIONS deluded people believe that God answers prayers proves my point that religion has corrupted their minds.

    4) Your assertion that he milk jug analogy is a strawman is false and unsubstantiated. If you want to make assertions like that, you need to show how the analogy misrepresents prayer. The point of the video is that a person would get EXACTLY the same results if they prayed to either a milk jug or Yahweh. I don't see how anything you said contradicts that fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Hold on, the burden of proof is on NEITHER one of us to demonstrate the OBSERVABLE large scale structure of the bible wheel is a random phenomenon. If someone is going to claim the OBSERVABLE patterns are random, then they need to get a RANDOM text, break it down into three sets around 22 spokes that are EACH assigned the same 22 meanings behind the 22 Hebrew alphabets (as well as the 8 keywords as for each 22 letters from the Psalm 119 pattern) and produce the same amount of interlocking corrections found in the bible wheel. If you claim the pattern is random, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is.
    What "observable" patterns are you talking about? You really need to be more specific if you want anyone to understand what you are trying to say.

    There is no need to test random texts for patterns. We can look at what we have in the Bible. If 99.9% of the text is not "connected" in a meaningful way on the spokes, then there is no "observable patterns" that need explaining. The fact that I could cherry pick a few hundred connections is meaningless in light of the fact that the vast majority do not fit. This was my error in my book. Cherry picking proves nothing. You need to look at ALL the data, and when we do that, we do not see any "observable pattern" in the vast majority of the text. I believe this constitutes a solid debunking of my primary claim, which is that the Bible Wheel reveals significant correlations between the books on the spokes. It would be great if you could try to accurately represent my argument and then refute it without making any logical fallacies, strawman misrepresentations, or other blatant errors that I have to correct.

    Great chatting!

    Shine on!



    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,369
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini
    Or how about the fact that there are 22 + 1 word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 that are perfect multiples of 37 (with EACH of the seven words of Genesis 1:1 being used EXACTLY 12 times in making up those perfect multiples of 37, with 12 being the PRIME ORDER of 37 itself)??? That has NOTHING to do with selection bias.
    That has everything to do with selection bias. I have seen you relate dozens of numbers to Genesis 1:1 in dozens of ways. You have not shown that those coincidences are meaningful. That's what you need to do .... in a slow, thoughtful, principled manner. Do you really expect me to believe credulous crap? It won't happen. Merely claiming "look at these coincidences! They must be designed!" strikes me as absurd and as a perfect example of cognitive bias. It is the primary error of all the fallacious numerologists in the world. You really need to think about this.
    You're actually telling me that the 22 + 1 word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 that are perfect multiples of *37* has "everything to do with selection bias"??? WHAT??? That is WAY beyond random chance AND is corroborated by the ARITHMETIC PROGRESSION of word value combinations that are perfect multiples of the ONLY *PRIME* of Genesis 1:1, which is the CENTRAL word value out of the seven Genesis 1:1 word values AND is the ONLY "untranslatable word". That's even MORE evidence that there is an intentional design built into the word value combinations of Genesis 1:1.
    I did not say that selection bias accounted for all features of the Creation holograph. I said "I have seen you relate dozens of numbers to Genesis 1:1 in dozens of ways." And that fact is true. I said you "have not shown that those coincidences are meaningful." That also is true. My point was that selection bias played a significant role in both the Bible Wheel and numerology. Your comment did not address the issue of how to discern between chance, design, and necessity. That's your problem. I've been explaining this to you for well over a year and you still don't get it. Merely pointing out a selected subset of random "connections" proves absolutely nothing. My comment was aimed specifically at your fundamental error - as I s

    Now as for the connection of the number 37 with the creation holograph. It is true that number occurs well outside the range of random chance. I did the calculation myself. Here's the graph from my article on the Number 37 that shows the factor analysis of sums of words in Genesis 1:1 -



    I have no fear of the truth. The fact that the number 37 plays an important role in the creation holograph is intriguing, but it proves nothing about the existence of a god that cannot exist because his properties are logically incoherent. There must be some other explanation. If you want to insist that it does "prove" the existence of the Biblegod, then you will need to redefine him so his properties are not self-contradictory. There is no other way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    1) That is the ONLY logical conclusion that accounts for the bible wheel because the bible proclaims its God from A to Z and records a long history of this God interacting with the most unique people known throughout the universe (the Israelites).
    Not true. Your appeal to logic is illogical because you are asserting that a logical contradiction (Yahweh) must exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    2) That is an ad hoc invention to AVOID the fact that the entire bible proclaims its God from A to Z and records a long history of this God interacting with the most unique people known throughout the universe (the Israelites).
    No it is not. You asked for possible explanations, and that's one of them. It coheres well with the imperfections of the Bible and Bible Wheel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    3) That doesn't explain the huge complexity and interlocking correlations within the large scale pattern of the bible wheel.
    What "huge complexity and interlocking correlations" are you talking about. If you look at ALL the data, you will see that 99.9% of shows no signs of any connections or correlations. You are lost in the delusion created by selection bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    4) That is an ad hoc invention with ZERO evidence for "group minds" (you're scaring me, Richard). My position isn't ad hoc at all BECAUSE the bible proclaims its God from A to Z and records a long history of this God interacting with the most unique people throughout the holy universe (the Israelites).
    Lots of people think there is lots of evidence suggesting the existence of "group minds." You assertion that such an idea scares you is just another example of you underhanded attempt to mislead people by appealing to emotionalism and knee-jerk responses to foreign concepts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    5) That only shows the person is ignorant of your findings. In fact, I myself used this when I first came upon your discovery. For years I thought it was goofy bullshit until I actually looked into all your bible wheel articles and ordered your book.
    And you were impressed by the "big case" I made by presenting a few hundred cherry picked "links" without noticing that I had ignored 99.9% of the data? You sure are easy to fool, Gambini.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    6) That's either an argument from personal incredulity or just ignorance of the bible wheel itself (Craig commented on your discovery? I didn't even know that).
    A mutual acquaintance presented it to him (with four pages of carefully reasoned Bayesean probabilities) and that was his response.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    7) The burden of proof is on the person making this claim to DEMONSTRATE the pattern is random.
    Bullshit! The burden of proof is always on the person claiming that there is a pattern in need of explanation. And that's not an answer to my point, which is that improbable shit happens all the time, and that might be the only legitimate explanation. How do you "explain" the connections between the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy or any of the ten thousand other weird "coincidences" that have been observed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    8) This is incoherent since it CAN'T be "all of the above" (that would be contradictory).
    Glad you noticed! No go apply that logic to your claims about the Biblegod and maybe we can make some progress.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    9) If it's none of the above, then it logically follows the pattern is real AND the burden of proof is on the person to present another alternative AND demonstrate why it should override the plain text of the bible itself (which proclaims its God from A to Z and records a long history of this God interacting with the most unique people throughout the universe, the Israelites).
    Not true. The only thing implied by "none of the above" is some other explanation that was not mentioned above. It says nothing about the pattern being "real" or anything about any "burden of proof" because it has not been demonstrated that a pattern demanding explanation even exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    10) Most of these "explanations" would contradict each other and the ONLY one that isn't ad hoc is the first one.
    Point 3, the evolutionary explanation, is not "ad hoc" in any way at all. On the contrary, it is the default position because we have much evidence that the scribes altered the order of the books many times over a period of more than a thousand years. This is why Norm Geisler said that even though it looks like there is some meaningful order in the canon, we shouldn't make too much of it because it has obviously been arranged by humans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    That's clearly selection bias because you're ALREADY starting with two presidents who happened to be assassinated and then searching for RANDOM occurrences in both their lives. *NOTHING* about the bible wheel is random. There are RULES relating to the meanings behind each of the 22 letters ruling over each of the 22 spokes AND there is a correspondence with the keywords that begin each stanza in the 22 divisions of Psalm 119 (which is alphabetically designed).
    Your assertion that "nothing about the Bible Wheel is random" directly begs the question! There is very good reason to think that the order of the books is random in relation to the Bible Wheel because 99.9% of the verses aligned on the same spokes have no connections with each other.

    As for the "Alphabetic Verses" - I'm glad you brought them up. I just reviewed my Table of Alphabetic Links and Keylinks in which I listed all the connections I could find after 15 years of research. The results are not pretty. There are only 22 alphabetic keylinks and no spoke has alphabetic keylinks in all three books. Seven spokes have no alphabetic key links at all! And the other links, which relate to an alphabetic keyword but are not directly linked to the alphabetic verses, are entirely missing from all three books on Spoke 7 and about half a dozen of the other books. Now let's ask a simple question: Is there any reason to think an Omniscient God produced such an incomplete pattern that "just happens" to look like the results of cherry picking? If so, why? What could he possibly be trying to prove by wrapping an enigma in a mystery like that? This is why it is illogical to believe an omniscient god produced the "pattern" if one even exists. It is too imperfect and accomplishes nothing.

    This is the ultimate question that must be answered. You need to explain why an omniscient God would design a mish-mash of incomplete and non-conclusive patterns.

    And this connects with the more general concept of "encoding." When a message is encoded in a text, the full message is fully understood when decoded. Every LETTER is accounted for. We don't see anything like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    And what do you think of this site - Spurious Correlations - that shows "amazing" coincidences in large datasets?
    That has absolutely NOTHING to do with biblical gematria. Biblical gematria involves mathematical links of *RELATED* words that have significant meaning to each other. This site you posted is meaningless. None of those things have any relation to each other.
    I didn't say it did. But it does. I asked you what you thought about it because it refers to any attempt to find "patterns" in any large data set, whether it be the 31,102 verses of the bible or the limitless number of numbers that can be "connected" through gematria. It shows that very convincing "coincidences" can be found in totally unrelated data. I've been trying to explain this to you for over a year but you refuse to deal with it. The vast majority of your "gematria results" are total bullshit because you have no rules, not PRINCIPLES guiding your study. I've proven this dozens of times on this forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    It's not cognitive bias when you look at THE WHOLE PICTURE. There are 66 chapters in Isaiah, who's timeline is placed MIDWAY between the giving of the Torah and the completion of the New Testament (there are 66 books in the bible) AND Isaiah happens to be the FIRST book in the SECOND cycle of the bible wheel (the MIDDLE cycle). There are TWO natural divisions of Isaiah and TWO natural divisions of the bible (the OT and the NT). The first natural division of Isaiah consists of 39 chapters (corresponding with the 39 books of the OT) and the second natural division of Isaiah consists of 27 chapters (corresponding with the 27 books of the NT). The FIRST chapter of Isaiah opens with a reference to "the heavens and the earth" and the LAST chapter of Isaiah closes with a PROPHECY of a NEW heavens and a NEW earth (just as the bible opens in Genesis with a reference to "the heavens and the earth" and closes in Revelation with a PROPHECY of a NEW heavens and a NEW earth). The 40th chapter of Isaiah (corresponding with the first book of the New Testament) opens with the FIRST BIBLICAL OCCURRENCE of the word "maveseret", which means "bringer of good tidings" and is translated in Greek as the root word of *GOSPEL*. The 40th chapter of Isaiah also opens with THE VERY WORDS SPOKEN BY JOHN THE BAPTIST IN MATTHEW (where he announces the prophesied messiah). The first 39 chapters of Isaiah is known as "the book of judgment" (corresponding with the theme of the 39 books of the OT) and the last 27 chapters of Isaiah is known as "the book of comfort" (corresponding with the theme of the 27 books of the NT).
    Yes, I'm very familiar with that "picture" since i have written thousands of words about it. There is no need for you to repeat what i already know. The Isaiah Bible Correlation is one of the "three threads" on which I structured my original site. So let's look at the quality of that evidence. First, I agree, it is impressive if you look at the big picture. And there are about a third of the books that bear a sufficiently striking correlation to really intrigue me. But there are also about a third that don't seem to match at all. And worse, I have met two different people who used two different orders of the books and yet were just as convinced as I was that God designed there pattern. This demonstrates that cognitive biases play a very important role in a study like the Isaiah Bible correlation. And worse, one of the orders, which follows the order of the modern Jewish Tanakh, actually fits MUCH BETTER for the book of Isaiah which is book 12 rather than 23 in that canon.

    So once again, we see that the real problem is that the picture formed is INCOMPLETE. It's like a "hint" that there might be "some" correlation, but what could be the cause? Why would an intelligent God do a half-assed job?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    And notice this is independent CORROBORATING evidence of the bible wheel because it points to a large scale design in the 66 books of the bible.
    Yes, that's what I always argued. But there is a problem. Weaving wet noodles will never make a strong fabric no matter how many are weaved. So the Isaiah Bible correlation does not offer any evidence for the order of the canon until it is independently confirmed as a "meaningful pattern." And remember, you will need to explain why an omniscient god did such a half-assed job in this supposedly "supernatural" design of his word.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    No, I don't have it backwards at all. Again, THE BIBLE WHEEL PATTERN IS THERE. Now if you want to claim the bible wheel pattern is really RANDOM, then the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that you can get the same patterns in a RANDOM text.
    There is no "Bible Wheel pattern." The Bible Wheel is nothing but a circular array of 66 cells. Any random object consisting of 66 cells could be displayed on that matrix, just like the Bible Wheel. The matrix IMPOSES a pattern on any object consisting of 66 cells. There is no self-evident pattern, except the Canon Wheel, but that's a different topic since I was talking about the "pattern" of the order of the books on the spokes.

    The "null hypothesis" is that the relation between the books on the spokes is random. Therefore, the person who says there is a non-random pattern bears the burden of proof. Besides, I have done the research and can confirm that 99.9% of the text is not aligned in a meaningful way on the wheel. Therefore, the null hypothesis is confirmed by the evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    LONG LIVE THE BIBLE WHEEL!!!
    It will be interesting to see how it fairs under the bright light of logic and facts.

    I appreciate your effort.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •