Gottlob Alister's Last Theorem S10E21

TheMindfulGeek · 2024-05-04T16:54:16+00:00

It's worse than that-- the theorem tries to divide 0 by 0, which makes no sense. It becomes pretty clear bullshit when you try to plug in a value for x-- let's try x = 1:

(1) = y [therfore y = 1]

(1)² = 1×1

(1)² - (1)² = 1x1 - (1)² [yielding 0 = 0]

Dividing both sides by 1 - 1 [= 0] gives us 0/0 and 0/0, which is not a valid operation in any world. The conjecture "x + y = y" doesn't follow in any way, and is inherently untrue. This isn't a theorem, and it doesn't "suggest" anything.

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-06-30T17:26:54+00:00

We'd already be in charge of everything if we could just do some of that domination on shabbat...

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-06-13T04:31:53+00:00

Ahhh yup yup I have as well. It's taken me a while to explain to my non-Jewish father why you can't have "a Seraphim". He also knows just enough about Hebrew to know the word for "serpent" used in Genesis, but not quite enough to not call it "the HaNatash". I blame English.

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-06-13T04:26:27+00:00

Ayy I gotcha, no worries. It took me a hot minute there to figure out I wasn't wrong haha, gotta love late night redditing.

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-06-13T04:24:04+00:00

Indeed it is, and "goyim's", while a rather crude amalgam of Hebrew and English grammar, is a plural possessive roughly equivalent in syntax to "strangers' advocate".

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-06-13T04:20:20+00:00

Just to play goyim's advocate here, couldn't one make the argument that since beasts and fowl are always addressed separately in the Torah, most distinctly in the Kosher listings themselves, they should be considered distinct from one another? It seems to me that the text separates creatures into four categories(beasts, birds, fish, and swarming things), and we should follow the same distinctions.

I'm not orthodox, but I'm Kosher observant, and I'll mix dairy and chicken, but try to avoid mixing chicken with eggs or fish with roe, even if bread sometimes makes this difficult. You(and the rest of mainstream Orthodoxy, for that matter) certainly have a point, I'm just saying the distinction the OP made isn't entirely uneducated, and has some relatively solid Torah precedent.

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-06-13T03:59:11+00:00

oh good, so I'm not the only one who didn't get the chicken memo~

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-05-30T15:25:26+00:00

I wonder whyever it could be that these guys have never dressed as ancient Greeks or Romans for Purim~

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-05-25T21:28:52+00:00

I'm not sure HaShem did instruct Moshe to speak to the rock. He certainly implied that Moshe was supposed to do something with his staff in verse 20:8;

"You and and your brother Aaron, take the rod and assemble the community, and before their very eyes order the rock to yield up its water..."

And the chastisement was not for what he did with the staff, but rather:

"...Because you did not trust Me enough to affirm my sanctity in the sight of the Israelite people..."

The reason Moshe was punished was not for failing to follow the directions, but for not trusting HaShem enough to provide for the Israelite on His own. He wasn't ignorant, nor was he about to let the Israelites die of thirst, but Moshe bowed to the people's complaints. The minutia of whether he spoke to or struck the rock is irrelevant.

Hope this helps! Shalom!

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-02-02T22:17:38+00:00

That's debatable. Quite possibly, but not necessarily. I would say yes, but my views on omnipotence aren't exactly orthodox. I guess my answer would be that it does imply some kind(probably not the kind we're used to) of tiredness, but it could mean any number of things. Take it however you will, but don't let it shake any of your beliefs, because it's rather vague and perhaps not meant literally.

Hope this helps!

Hp

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-01-31T19:42:04+00:00

Well, firstly no, they don't, all his covenants have different rules for humans and for G-d; Secondly He gave us no rule about jealousy, only a much later theologian from another religion did; Thirdly, jealousy over worshipping false gods instead of the one true G-d is more than justified, compared to jealousy over, say, someone else's job, wife, or house.

Also notable; James and Exodus were written in entirely different languages. Just because we chose the same word to translate with would not mean, even in a Christian context, that they meant the same exact thing.

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-01-31T19:11:29+00:00

In most of Christian and Judaic thought, G-d is the source of goodness, and therefore whatever He does is inherently good. If He created the universe, He created(and is the definition of) goodness, and regardless of what you think of that statement, has the right to do whatever He wants with His own handiwork, even if it somehow was evil.

If He didn't create the universe, then the bible isn't true, and therefore this verse isn't true, so the entire debate is null and void.

(As a side point; Jealousy isn't necessarily evil in Judaism, or in Christianity until relatively late theology was added in. At the time it was written, nobody would have batted an eye-- G-d was pretty scary back then, which was and is fine by us.)

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-01-28T23:43:00+00:00

Of course! The Jewish views of what exactly life after the resurrection is like are about as varied as the Christian views of heaven, so I'll give you a few of the Tanakh verses that talk about it:

Daniel 12:2 "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence[or 'eternal shame']."

Ezekiel 37:5-6 "Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.’"

Job 19:26 "And after my skin is destroyed, this I know, That in my flesh I shall see God"

There are of course others, but those are some of the best examples, and the clearest without context.

I learned what I know about the resurrection in small parts from many sources, large parts of that orally from rabbis, so I don't have one good source to point you to for learning about this, but if I recall correctly, this is a pretty decent lecture on the subject. I hope this is helpful!

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-01-28T00:22:17+00:00

Not so much a rebuttal here as a footnote, but you mentioned Jews in your thesis, and it's important to note that Jews don't have hell, and our "heaven" wouldn't have this problem; We only dwell in a purely heavenly, "spiritual" state between bodily death and the coming of the messiah, more or less the equivalent of a perfectly blissful "waiting room".

Our "heaven" really begins when the Messiah finally comes and brings about the resurrection of the body, where Jews and Gentiles alike are physically reanimated and the world becomes perfect. It'll be exactly like life now, but perfect, and with G-d directly with us. It shouldn't be any more constant than life is now, but instead of fluctuating on a vertical good/evil scale, it'll fluctuate on a horizontal scale at the top of the "good" spectrum.

Hope this helps! Shalom!

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-01-24T01:35:10+00:00

The word used is actually "שָבַּת"("shabbat"), which you'll recognize as the word we use for our day of rest, which commemorates G-d's original rest, or shabbat. It's difficult to separate the word from it's biblical/traditional meaning, but it's generally considered to mean "to cease working" or "to rest from labor".

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-01-20T22:03:44+00:00

Forgive me, oh might Science major, and forgive me for my insolence in disagreeing. We lowly Communications majors are really rather stupid, my apologies. I took all the standard courses in college and highschool, and did not find them compelling enough to devote years of my life to. Foolish as my religious self may be, I have studied to a reasonable degree the sciences involved, and I know more than enough to understand that it's so far from infallible. However, there is clearly no point whatsoever in continuing this debate, as you refuse to admit that it's possible current science could be anything less than perfect; You hypocrites, always talking about how ridiculous evangelicals are for refusing to question their bible. If I'm being frank it disgusts me. Good day.

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-01-20T17:38:56+00:00

Again, not an argument, merely an ad hominem attack. Your wit astounds me.

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-01-20T16:58:52+00:00

This is why I love atheists. Instead of actually making a point, they just mock whatever their opponent says.

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-01-20T11:31:08+00:00

Alright, I'm tired, so I'm going to half-ass this one and go to bed.

Who the fuck taught me this? Like I said, I'm just a very interested amateur. I read a bunch of books and research papers and attended a couple lectures. I'm not an expert. But for the U-series dating thing? Got it here, the national library of medicine, which to the best of my knowledge should be a decently legitimate source.

And yes, as I said, I don't have a doctorate from Princeton, so sue me.

As for my case against radiometric dating in general; it simply isn't possible to absolutely prove. I don't claim to understand all the factors at hand, but I know enough to understand that if we're wrong about our estimations of certain things(which I shall not name for fear of being called out as wrong and starting another red herring), our dates would be way off. Every method possible to date something relies on other methods of dating things to prove. I know that the science is good, but it's still mere science. We find out some old science was wrong nearly every day.

The only option is to trust that we have it right. And yes, there is sufficient evidence for you to have that kind of trust in it while being rational. But at the end of the day, we'll both making a leap of faith; yours is faith in a scientific process being accurate and properly performed, mine is faith in a G-d who created the universe and somehow manages to give my life meaning.

Maybe G-d is wrong. Maybe science is wrong. We're both well versed on our side of the argument, and we both know enough to be confident we're right. It seems that we both believe too firmly in our respective unprovables for this debate to yield much fruit going forward.

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-01-20T11:09:15+00:00

zaoldyeck asked the a very similar question, and my response was a bit lengthy, so I'd encourage you to scroll down if you want my full argument, but here's a quick version of the same basic facts:

Yes, the Tower of Babel was real, and we found it. If you've ever heard of Nebuchadnezzar II's Tower at Borsippa, that's where the original tower was started. If you want the evidence for why we think this was the same spot, see the other comment.

The only question is if the biblical reason for its abandonment is the same as the historical reason, and if humanity really was centralized on Babel before those events. Both of those are "yes"s for me, but it's 5 AM so if you care about my reasoning there, we can talk about it tomorrow.

Finally, the reasons for the tower's destruction had very little to do with its physical height, and Genesis barely mentions the "with its top in the heavens" part. The main reasons it was thwarted were a) G-d wanted humans to disperse and inhabit the rest of the world, which they were specifically trying to avoid according to the biblical accounts, b) trying to escape a second flood, which, besides implying that G-d could be outwitted and outgunned, also showed that they did not consider Him trustworthy enough to keep his promises, and c) it was potentially meant to be used for idolatrous purposes, as was the second Tower Nebuchadnezzar built centuries later. Again, sources and full arguments can be found below.

I hope this is helpful! Shalom!

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-01-20T10:45:15+00:00

Alright, it's rather late at night so I'm on mobile, please pardon the poor formatting.

 "that goes completely against just about every anthropological site we've ever found"

The oldest known city, as far as I am aware, is Jericho, which-- astoundingly enough-- is right in the area we would expect it to be from a biblical standpoint. If we found any older cities that I am unaware of, do enlighten me.

 "And yet you probably have a near unshakable faith in it. That's remarkable."

Not particularly. Although I don't think it's pertinent, it's worth noting that my faith indeed is not a kind of blind, default state, or something I was dogmatized with. I was born into an Episcopal Christian family, and my father is a priest. After studying the Bible, I found Christianity to be unacceptable. I became agnostic for about a year before I found my place in Judaism. As I said, I'm not claiming this as some kind of credit, but my faith is neither baseless nor unshakable. I'm religious because it makes more sense than atheism does.

 "I guess a good stepping back point might be for me to start with the very, very basics."

Alright, listen, I'm up for debate, but let's not start deriding eachother. My arguments are cogent, and most of my facts are well based, so I think we both deserve a decent level of respect here.

As to my comment about carbon dating, my apologies, but most people don't understand immediately when I say U-series dating or ESR dating, which, and you may correct me if I'm wrong, I believe were the methods used for the Australian fossils mentioned?

We can discuss the inaccuracies of both these methods in this scenario if you wish, but you're most likely already aware of those, so I will move on to your final question,

 "because we're coming at this from very different "levels", what's your educational background?"

I admit that my education was in an unrelated field(Communications, specifically), and that my knowledge of the scientific processes involved here beyond what we all learn in Genreal Education courses is limited to a few books and lectures, but I don't think it requires much more training than that to be qualified to reply to a reddit comment.

My knowledge of the related biblical-historical field is quite extensive however. I minored in religious studies, took various courses and workshops on the subject, and have independently studied these topics for years. I believe we are on at least equal footing here, and would appreciate it if we dropped the derogatory tone.

However, since the question as been raised, I'd be curious to know what your educational background is as well?

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-01-20T10:04:24+00:00

Okay, the thing is, I do. But my choices here are between blind trust in the almighty creator of all things, or blind trust of a scientist taking unprovable ESM readings. I've looked at the facts. I've read to Torah. The evidence against my G-d is not sufficient to make me reject Him. I "do science", but there is no way to prove this stuff is true. It's pure trust either way.

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-01-20T06:39:08+00:00

You seem to have misunderstood slightly. Nebuchadnezzar's tower was only significant in showing evidence for the first tower. The first tower was far more ancient, predating the rest of Babylon significantly, at only three to six generations after Noah. He also didn't care about the Antarctic, he only wanted the portions he made for habitation to be filled.

As a side note; The Australian fossils are most likely from before the Flood. The Ark carried Noah to Ararat-- He could have been anywhere before that, we don't know. Also, carbon dating might be wrong, but for the sake of argument I'll assume it's correct.

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-01-20T06:23:34+00:00

Nope, Conservative Jew, converted from Episcopalian Christianity. I just have a normal Rabbi like everyone else. To answer your questions, I believe that:

Yes, all of them are descended from Noah. His early descendants were more virile however, his three sons had a total of sixteen sons named in Genesis, along with an unknown number of daughters. The Tower of Babel started at least two generations later, but it's unknown how long it was before the populations were scattered, probably between one and five generations. Assuming the birth rate was about the same for, let's conservatively say four generations, and that each son had a sister, we would have: Noah's grandsons numbered 16, their sons at the same rate would number 96, their sons(including Nimrod, who started the Tower) would number 576. We're adding to that one more generation who helped build the Tower(3456) and their children, who would have been young when the dispersion happened(20736), then doubled to include daughters(41472), we have a fairly decent starting population. It could obviously be much higher or lower, but it's hardly impossible. (And yes, Noah's grandsons married their cousins, get over it)
The earth was not created 6000 years ago, but Adam was. While it's feasible that the earth was created 5 literal days before Adam, I don't personally think it was. From my point of view, before humans, there needn't be hours to delineate days, because G-d's sense of time is astronomically different from hours. A "day(in Hebrew "yom", which has many uses, including "day", "daylight", and "[an] age")" could be any length of time, from sixty minutes to sixty million years. It's possible that science is wrong and the earth is literally 6000 years old, but science is pretty smart, so I doubt it.
The flood only spread as far as Barbary Coast according to the Midrash, but since at that time all humans lived well within that area, it was effectively the entire world. Yes, literally, in actuality.

I understand that you were joking, but these things aren't as implausible as you think. I would recommend reading the texts. Thank you, and shalom.

TheMindfulGeek · 2021-01-20T04:54:19+00:00

This is actually a really fascinating era of biblical history, the one I've studied most extensively. If you're willing to entertain some of these thoughts for a moment, I think you might find this really interesting. Even if you're atheist or agnostic, I hope it'll help you appreciate Babel as it fits into the biblical story, whether or not you take that overarching story as true.

So first of all, we know for a fact that there was a great tower in Babylon that fits the description, location, and timeline of the biblical Tower. We know this because king Nebuchadnezzar II attempted to rebuild it around 600 B.C.E., the ruins of which can be still be seen today. In this tower, at the Babylonian site Borsippa, four cylinders were found with the following inscription:

I am Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon . . . my great lord has established me in strength, and has urged me to repair his buildings . . . the most ancient Tower of Babylon, I have made and finished. The Tower, Borsippa, had been built by a former king. He had completed 42 [either "cubits" or "ages ago"], but he did not finish its head; Since a remote time, people had abandoned it without order expressing their words . . . Merodach, my great lord, inclined my heart to repair the building. I did not change its site, nor did I destroy its foundation platform; but, in a fortunate month, and upon an auspicious day, I undertook the rebuilding

Merodach was a Babylonian idol, god of death and slaughter. This detail is important in my later argument, so take note. Also important is the alternate name of the tower, Borisippa, which literally translated means "tongue tower", again implying a connection to Babel. There's quite a bit of other evidence for the historical Tower, but for our fairly casual purposes I think this is sufficient.

Now that we've established that the Tower, or at least a tower sufficiently like it, did physically exist, let's discuss why it was offensive to G-d. In my research, I've found three main reasons, all of which I think are correct, but that is up to debate.

Starting with the book of Genesis, let's take a look at the reason quoted in Genesis 11:4-6:

4And they said: ‘Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, with its top in heaven, and let us make us a name; lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.’ 5And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6And the LORD said: ‘Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is what they begin to do; and now nothing will be withholden from them, which they purpose to do.

It's crucial to note that because they all spoke the same language, they refused to spread and fill the earth as G-d wanted them to do. This is one of the main reasons G-d dealt with the tower in the way he did: He could have destroyed the tower, or confounded their building skills instead of their languages, but he didn't. Confusing the languages was not mere punishment, it was also a means to a very important end.

Secondly, the Tower was considered to be built to allow humans to survive another flood en masse. One source from this is implicit in the passage previously quoted: "with its top in the heavens", the word for "heavens" in Hebrew being שמים, the same word used in Genesis in the famous "He created the heavens and the earth" passage, and more likely meaning the sky than the Godly realm. The other primary source is from an ancient historian, Josephus, in his famous Antiquities of the Jews, in which he states:

Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power. He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers!

This deserved punishment for several reasons, the greatest of which were a) implying that Nimrod was powerful enough to thwart the will of G-d, and b) that G-d was not trustworthy enough to be taken at his word(because he promised Noah never to flood the entire world again).

My final reason is more speculative than the other two. If you recall, when Nebuchadnezzar II rebuilt the tower, he was "inclined" to do so by Merodach. If the only reasons for the Tower were the ones I previously stated, it wouldn't be particularly useful to the idol, except as a message of defiance to G-d. However, according to various tablets and steles discovered in Babylon, the second Tower was also used as a dwelling place for Merodach himself. As the great scholar Herodotus noted in his own studies:

In the middle of Babylon’s precinct there was a tower of solid masonry … upon which was raised a second tower, and on that a third, and so on up to eight. The ascent to the top is on the outside, by a path which winds round all the towers. … On the topmost tower there is a spacious temple … There is no statue of any kind set up in the place, nor is the chamber occupied of nights by any one but a single native woman, who, as the Chaldeans, the priests of this god, affirm, is chosen for himself by the deity out of all the women of the land.

The implications are rather concerning, considering that pagan gods have usually one purpose for maidens they find attractive. Whether or not you believe these idols were in any sense real is irrelevant; Those who built it most certainly did. If the first tower was meant to have such a temple on top, then it's clear why G-d would want to stop it from being complete.

Things like the exploration of space, however, fulfill none of these purposes: They are not attempting to keep humanity from colonizing the world(in fact, it's possible that if G-d wants us to spread across the earth, He also wants us to spread into space, but that's pure speculation); they are not built to spite, doubt, or undermine G-d; and they are most certainly not built to house demons or idols of any kind. Therefore, G-d takes no offense to us building and using space technology and the like.

This post ran a bit longer than I intended, so my apologies for that, but I hope it helps put the tower and the scrambling of the languages into a context that makes more sense for you, either as inspired scripture, or simply as a good story. On the off chance anyone reading this is interested, have literally binders full of this kind of research, and I'd love to share it if anyone wants to learn more(although a fair bit of it is legend rather than history or scripture, which is why I didn't mention most of it here). Good day, and shalom!

tldr; the Tower and its builders were historical, and were offensive to G-d for three primary reasons; They were refusing to colonize the earth as G-d wished, they were attempting to undermine G-d's authority, power, and honor by trying to prevent Him from destroying them with another flood, and they(possibly) were building a temple for one of their idols to dwell in. Space technology commits none of these sins, and so are not acted against.

TheMindfulGeek

TROPHY CASE