A Second Channel of Communication?

Oh, triangle. Do you have any concept of the depth of the abyss you're teetering on the edge of, if not already plummeting into? In the other thread you acknowledged having wasted a lot of time peering into real and metaphorical telescopes, but this particular 'scope is more of the kaleido- variety. Reflect random arrangements off of enough internal mirrors and they'll show you beautiful patterns, but searching for meaning in those patterns is the road to madness, and finding such meaning is a major milestone on the way there.

There are people who see the teleological hand of some universal intelligence at work in the random turns of the Tarot cards, the shapes formed by tea leaves, and the arrangements that the planets and stars blunder mindlessly into and out of as they follow their utterly predictable courses. Should we credit those with divine meaning too? Does God or the gods also pass us messages in the toss of I Ching sticks, the movements of birds, and the entrails of sacrificed sheep? Are those the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, umpteenth channels of communication?

Or are people just really good at making up stories that attribute meaning to arrangements, whether they actually contain it or not?

I've examined claims like yours before. Here, I found over sixteen meaningful stylistic devices in a few lines of a pop song, to test the claim that the comparable stylistic depth of the verse in the Koran can only be explained by divine origin.

Here, I found a veritable confession (in both verbal and pictorial form) of an elaborate 9/11 conspiracy, by putting the letters of one of the most well-known quotes about the events of 9/11 into a square and then looking for words and patterns. Understanding why I did that and what it shows might take some back-story. It was based on what a member named Kingfisher2926 was demonstrating in this thread: that putting the first 64 Hebrew characters from Genesis into an 8x8 square in a particular way revealed therein all sorts of "significant" characteristics, shapes, symmetries, number patterns, and crostic words that couldn't possibly be the result of mere coincidence.

I recommend that you read that entire thread, though it's lengthy. You will either find a kindred spirit who will enlighten you with his discoveries of divine revelation, or a person whose evident departure from sense and reality will frighten you into reconsidering the course you're on.

In that thread, he claimed that the patterns he finds are self-evident from the most basic of manipulations, rather than the result of extensive searching in a vast space of possibilities. Does that claim sound familiar? I responded thus:




He also claimed that he had performed "control" searches by repeating the same manipulations that revealed divine messages in Genesis on other generic texts, and had not found comparably striking patterns. I responded thus:




The "MRC Secret Seal" referred to can be found in the second post on this page of the thread, in which member MRC_Hans (and other members who chimed in subsequently) found multiple meaningful words and "clues" in a letter grid derived directly from the opening words of Kingfisher's own first post in the thread. So two skeptical control attempts, MRC_Hans's "MRC Secret Seal" and my "Silverstein Seal," both succeeded on the first try in finding the semblance of hidden messages—and those were both based on English text, in which typical word lengths are longer and thus less likely to be formed at random. Perform the search over years of effort instead of a few minutes, and it's no surprise that more "amazing" improbable patterns will be found.

Bottom line: there are reasons why most religious authorities in scripture-based faiths discourage or forbid the kind of logomancy you and Kingfisher are engaging in here, regarding it at best a waste of effort and at worst a form of mortally sinful idolatry. You risk, in the quest to replace weak faith with hard evidence, doing the opposite instead, replacing resolute faith with the shakiest of evidence. With the further likelihood of replacing God with the kaleidoscope figures of your own imagination. Those who already consider God to be a kaleidoscope figure of people's imaginations won't mind terribly much, but it seems a strange risk to take when you maintain that such a being exists.

If you believe (as many Christians and other believers do) that a universal intelligence has manipulated language itself to preserve the (hidden coded) meanings in ancient scriptures, then why not focus on the much richer actual overt meanings conveyed by the actual words? Do you think the universal intelligence failed to guide those, and acted only upon the secret codes instead?

The Bible says that God once altered humankind, in a manner that would arguably have been responsible over the long run for more deaths worldwide than the Great Flood, in order to prevent a tribe from building too tall a building. (Most likely, the originators of the story would have envisioned the "tower" of Babel as some sort of large ziggurat.) What does that narrative mean today? Should we be concerned that erecting ever-taller skyscrapers will bring some even more destructive manifestation of God's wrath upon the entire world?

If not, if even the meaning of that straightforward story is unclear, then what meaning can all the secret codes and special numbers have? What is being communicated in this second channel?

Also what use is a communication from god if it's meaning has to wait for thousands of years? I wouldn't trust a being that went to so much trouble to disguise it's message.


Lo I refined the text and detected the code only to discover that I'd written it myself.
 
In a world where respectable physicists argue over whether or not this universe is a simulation, politicians are expected to lie, nuclear proliferation, consumerism, celebrity worship, bankers and advertisers running riot and people being paid millions of dollars to sing a tune, act in a movie and kick a ball between two posts, while others are bombed out of their homes for political objectives, I wouldn't be so sure about where the line should be drawn between sanity and insanity. I will answer this more fully tomorrow, but perhaps you should ask yourself in the meantime if your confidence in your own position regarding God is justified. I don't know what that position is, but you seem confident enough about it to see fit to question my sanity, and without really looking at what I have to show you.

If your god is running the world you have just described, I question it's sanity.
 
I took the first verse of Genesis, King James Version, and counted each of its symbols (letters, punctuation, and spaces). There are 55 in total.

Fifty-five! This is a magnificent sign from God herself.

I mean, think about it:

55 is figurate number.
55 is a palindrome.
55 = 11 x 5, both prime numbers, and 11 is another palindrome and 5 is another figurate number.
In the Periodic Table, the natural elements in Group 11 are copper, silver, and gold.
There are 11 spacetime dimensions in M-theory.

I could go on and on about 55, and 11, and 5, and 10 = 5+5, and 2 = 1+1, and 16 = 11+5, and ....

What does it all mean?????

Not a damn thing.

Dogs and cats living with each other, midnight horrors roam at high noon and the Old Ones return and are Hungry.


(may you be eaten first)
 
You forgot to add that this ancient scribe would also have had to have been a calculating genius, able to calculate the product of 29 numbers, then another eight numbers, then divide one total by the other, then adjust the text, with further abtruse calculations, to obtain the desired total (whilst ensuring the text was still grammatically correct and meaningful). That's also assuming that he knew pi to 5 significant figures, which was better than the best accuracy available then (unless we accept that a later editor did that, which introduces further complications, since he would be very restricted in how much he could have tampered with the text).

In addition to all of that, he would have been required to insert all the geometric marvels that appear in the text: 2701, for the entire text (a number whose geometric properties he would have to be an expert on), 703 for the last two words (this number being the core triangle of triangle 2701), numbers representing the stellar arrangement (37 stars of 73) and its internal hexagon (19 X 73, sum of words 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7). Then there is hexagon 1801 (sum of words 1, 3, 5 and 6), which happens to be the hexagon produced by self intersection of triangle 2701.

Further combinations of words give other geometric properties of the triangle, all thanks to this ancient scribe, who also managed to ensure none of it would be changed in future - unless we accept that those who, over the next couple of millennia, may have edited it, were also in on the deal, had the same extraordinary abilities as our antediluvian genius and had the same futile goals as he. One of these giants would of course have encrypted Euler's number into the opening verse of John, many centuries before the rest of the world discovered natural logarithms, somehow managing to obtain the same level of accuracy, such that when summed the errors almost completely cancel out.

Of course you're still arguing the point over the iota, so perhaps he got it slightly wrong there. Still you have to gape in awe at what they did achieve in all this (apart from that tiny flaw only you have detected), but at the same time shake our heads in pity at the futility of it all. Why on earth would they all do such a thing, and in such a way that it would be thousands of years before anyone found it? And not only geniuses were they, but evil geniuses at that, creating the literary equivalent of feeding false impulses into our brains-in-a-vat. Or maybe they were egotists (yet humble enough to keep their Olympian mental feats secret) and liked the idea that thousands of years in the future men would discover their futile efforts and not know whether to laugh or cry at the enormous waste of time and energy in the doing, in an age of counting beads and stones, of all these enormously difficult calculations for **** all.

In other words, by a kind of reductio ad absurdum, it makes no sense. Of course you might argue it's all one huge coincidence, but surely you wouldn't do that. Would you?

Why on earth would god do such a thing,and in such a way that it would be thousands of years before anyone found it?
 
Yet you apparently think that you do know this. Care to walk us through the process that led you to this conclusion?

Please supply your evidence that this is how it was done.

Blue Triangle, another thought has been vexing me.
You claim that these encoded numbers are a message from your god, and are an attempt by him/her/it to communicate with us.
Again, assuming that these hidden messages are real, and not merely a product of persistence and pareidolia, how are we supposed to respond?
The message so far is "4,000 years ago (or however long it is), I knew the value of Pi, more or less". OK. What do we then do? Are we supposed to find another religious text, say whatever holy book the Pastafarians have, and mess around with it until we can encode "Yeah. We know too, but you made a couple of mistakes", then wait another 4,000 years before discovering a response in another religious book?
Even assuming that what you claim is true (and you've got a long way to go before I'm prepared to accept that, based on the excellent contributions by other posters), this seems like a ridiculously lengthy and convoluted way to communicate. If your god is so interested in talking to us, why doesn't he/she/it just turn up at the UN HQ and get on with it? Why bother leaving a 4,000 year-old Easter egg (pun intended) to which we have no useful response, and which aids us not a bit?

Why on earth would god do such a thing,and in such a way that it would be thousands of years before anyone found it?

tsig's question is not only a repetition of one I asked earlier, it is one of a number that blue triangle seems to be ignoring.
bt- care to respond?
 
Oh, triangle. Do you have any concept of the depth of the abyss you're teetering on the edge of, if not already plummeting into? In the other thread you acknowledged having wasted a lot of time peering into real and metaphorical telescopes, but this particular 'scope is more of the kaleido- variety. Reflect random arrangements off of enough internal mirrors and they'll show you beautiful patterns, but searching for meaning in those patterns is the road to madness, and finding such meaning is a major milestone on the way there.

Finding meaning isn't the road to madness, it's finding inappropriate meaning, or finding none at all.

There are people who see the teleological hand of some universal intelligence at work in the random turns of the Tarot cards, the shapes formed by tea leaves, and the arrangements that the planets and stars blunder mindlessly into and out of as they follow their utterly predictable courses. Should we credit those with divine meaning too? Does God or the gods also pass us messages in the toss of I Ching sticks, the movements of birds, and the entrails of sacrificed sheep? Are those the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, umpteenth channels of communication?

God can communicate any way he likes, I believe. And any set of symbols could be used - combined with synchronicity it could communicate a wide variety of meanings.

Or are people just really good at making up stories that attribute meaning to arrangements, whether they actually contain it or not?

People are certainly good at that, of course. Only you can decide if something was a sign for you, though. If it was repeated once or twice, it might really be one.

Here, I found a veritable confession (in both verbal and pictorial form) of an elaborate 9/11 conspiracy, by putting the letters of one of the most well-known quotes about the events of 9/11 into a square and then looking for words and patterns.

Who do you think did 9/11?

As for your word square, it sounds contrived.

Understanding why I did that and what it shows might take some back-story. It was based on what a member named Kingfisher2926 was demonstrating in this thread: that putting the first 64 Hebrew characters from Genesis into an 8x8 square in a particular way revealed therein all sorts of "significant" characteristics, shapes, symmetries, number patterns, and crostic words that couldn't possibly be the result of mere coincidence.

I had a look at that, but without researching further why he came up with it, I wouldn't comment.

Bottom line: there are reasons why most religious authorities in scripture-based faiths discourage or forbid the kind of logomancy you and Kingfisher are engaging in here, regarding it at best a waste of effort and at worst a form of mortally sinful idolatry. You risk, in the quest to replace weak faith with hard evidence, doing the opposite instead, replacing resolute faith with the shakiest of evidence. With the further likelihood of replacing God with the kaleidoscope figures of your own imagination. Those who already consider God to be a kaleidoscope figure of people's imaginations won't mind terribly much, but it seems a strange risk to take when you maintain that such a being exists.

Some Christians have tried to say as much.

If you believe (as many Christians and other believers do) that a universal intelligence has manipulated language itself to preserve the (hidden coded) meanings in ancient scriptures, then why not focus on the much richer actual overt meanings conveyed by the actual words? Do you think the universal intelligence failed to guide those, and acted only upon the secret codes instead?

Why not do both?

As for God writing the Bible, I believe that there are different levels of understanding in scripture. It's a little like an onion. The deeper levels containing more of God. The patterns Vernon Jenkins is revealing were inserted without the knowledge of the writers, completely unconsciously in other words, and are therefore have little or nothing of the writers in them.

At the surface we have a very interesting mix. It's widely thought that the Bible was taken more literally in the past than now, which was usually true, although rabbis have said that the surface level of understanding the Tannakh was always for "children and people of limited understanding". However, the idea that modern man is meant to take all this literally, promulgated by various fundamentalist groups and some atheists for their own purposes, is completely false, and I think that it is meant to be read at the deepest level your understanding is capable of reaching.

The Bible says that God once altered humankind, in a manner that would arguably have been responsible over the long run for more deaths worldwide than the Great Flood, in order to prevent a tribe from building too tall a building. (Most likely, the originators of the story would have envisioned the "tower" of Babel as some sort of large ziggurat.) What does that narrative mean today? Should we be concerned that erecting ever-taller skyscrapers will bring some even more destructive manifestation of God's wrath upon the entire world?

It's a parable about excessive wordly ambition, about man (representing the ego) relying too much on his (its) own strength and understanding. There is a prophetic element to it too, I believe, as the twin towers were a modern tower of Babel. The tale is told over the first 9 verses of Genesis 11. But before you jump in here, I am not here to talk about 9/11.

If not, if even the meaning of that straightforward story is unclear, then what meaning can all the secret codes and special numbers have? What is being communicated in this second channel?

The story is not unclear and there is much more that could be said about it. However, the mathematical patterns Vernon and others have uncovered (I should declare my interest here because I have played a small part in it myself), show at the very least that God is concerned with truth. Mathematics is the nearest thing we have to a universal language, a lingua franca and the high country of Truth. It's axioms are eternal and a solid foundation for our reasoning. I can't think of anything more worthy of our Creator than the beautiful geometry engraved onto the first verse of His Word, most of which hasn't yet been introduced and of which there is so much that the word 'holograph' might be appropriate. It's a kind of authenticating watermark on scripture.
 
The quote you're responding to was not based on the idea of an ancient scribe encoding magic numbers without help. It was based on the idea of an ancient scribe being told what number to inscribe in a sentence and finding a way to write it. The subject was what this would tell us about whoever told the scribe that number. Your claim was that it would somehow require omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. My counter was that telling the scribe what number to put in the text does not require any of that. I said nothing about the scribe inventing it all alone.

In other words, I was accepting your premise that the scribe had deliberate help, for a hypothetical consideration of what that would imply, and your response about the genius scribe was as if I had been working with the premise of no help for the scribe.

I do, in fact, think it was written without any special modern knowledge of numbers, but in the post you were responding to, I temporarily indulged the contrary idea to show that even then, it still doesn't logically lead where you want it to lead.

And my point wasn't being made about a single scribe or author or editor or any combination of such. It was about the impossibility of it being done at all by man.
 
If you think the idea of a God 'foul' then you are hideously misinformed both bout his character and your own highest nature. Or maybe you would rather there was none for reasons of your own. Either way, I contend that none of your own musings, fears, or perhaps second hand opinions, will make any difference as God's reality.

Are you finally admitting, despite your earlier retractions, that you are, in fact, pushing the 'god' of the OT?

I wonder what you think gives you, personally, the right to call a poster's opinions "second hand"; you who are pushing someone else's work, and selling a badly-plagiarized, poorly conceived, ill-considered, inconsistent used 'god' out of Bronze-Age superstition. You know, the 'god' who offers to "save" me from what it will do to me if I do not let it "save" me...

The supposedly multi-omni 'god' that made me as I am, and (omnisciently, according to you) knows what is would take to make me believe in it; and, withholding that, plans (according to you) to torture me for all eternity because it has not chosen to make itself believable...

And the fact that someone else showed you complex ways to presume a "message" from it by careful (and carefully contrived) mathnipulations is somehow supposed to elicit my beleif?

It is to snerk. I was wrong to hope this thread would be moved to R & P. It belongs in "Humor", if it belongs anywhere at all.

<superstitionsnip>

In the Masoretic text of Genesis, 1000-year-old copies of which are still extant (and I've checked the lettering myself) it always 'maps' yes. There are other versions of the Hebrew Bible, such as the Samaritan Bible, and there a Greek version of the Old Testament. But the Masoretic Bible, being the basis for the Leningrad codex, which is the oldest complete version of the text, and which became the Biblia Hebraica and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the modern Hebrew Bible, is the encoded one - and it could only be one, given that small textual changes rapidly destroy the patterns.

Right. The "patterns" that have to be manipulated, fudged, and cherry-picked in order to come up with "kinda close" answers...I do not think you are using "omniscient" in a way consonant with its actual meaning.

<pilpulsnip>
 
Paredolia? That has yet to be shown, and you and the rest here are far from doing it, other than throwing some of your favourite words at it.
You won't get away with reversing the burden of proof here. You are the one making the extraordinary claim, it is up to you to show it is true, not to us to show it isn't. Pareidolia is the null hypothesis which you have to give us good reason to reject. Generating a 'special' number from your chosen text which is just one of thousands for which a case for 'specialness' could be made, and approximations to universal constants by carefully cherry picking a particular sequence of arithmetical manipulations from the millions of sequences available, does not cut it.
 
All integers are special.

1 is special because it is the first integer, the basic unit for all counting, the identity element for multiplication, its own square, and so forth.

2 is special because it's a prime factor of all even numbers, among other reasons.

3 is special because it's a triangular number and the first Mersenne prime, among other reasons.

4 is special because it's a perfect square, among other reasons.

5 is special because 5 to any integer power always ends in 5, among other reasons.

6 is special because it's the only factorial that's also a perfect number (the sum of its divisors other than itself), among other reasons.

7 is special because it's the first double Mersenne prime, among other reasons.

We know that various other integers are special for various reasons. Some are squares or cubes etc., some are parts of unusual relations between their digits, factors, powers, etc. (For instance, 153 is the lowest of only four integers that are the sums of the cubes of their digits.) But are all integers special?

Assume that not all integers are special. There must therefore be a lowest integer, call it n, that is not special.

But being the lowest integer that is not special is a pretty special property! That makes n special.

This is a contradiction, so the assumption that not all integers are special must be false. Therefore all integers are special.
 
Last edited:
...

If one letter was changed or dropped or added to genesis 1.1, most of the patterns would be destroyed They are very sensitive to alternative spellings, etc. It's possible that some of it might remain intact.

Yes, but dozens of new patterns would be created, each with as much deep meaning as the one you'd like to promote. You do realize that there are a million ways to make a pi, or a pie, no? You do realize that if you proffered your dob and lat-lon of same, anyone here with a bit of motivation could offer "proof" that you are in fact the antichrist? I know it would be very upsetting for you to hear, but it would really be a trivial exercise. :eek:
 
A claim for which I've given evidence. Where's yours?
I'm not assuming God speaks to us in the way I'm claiming God does. I'm showing you the evidence for it.
This stuff isn't evidence. Even if the numbers had been right, it wouldn't be evidence. With most of the numbers wrong, it's not even a decent mockery of real evidence.

If it was achieved by other means, then we have a great mystery before us.
Not a great anything, and not a mystery of any scale. Just a single barely-noteworthy coincidence.

When scientists start speaking of God they are usually confined to the intellectual wilderness.
Classic Christian persecutionist fantasy. You have just completely eliminated any possibility that you are not either lying or delusional.
 
But wait...there's MORE! :D

After forcing myself to digest the numerological nonsense in BT's link, I momentarily went insane, and looked up the NCBI ID# for gene 2701
(drumroll, please....)
It is identified as GJA4, or connexin gene Cx37 There's that number again...remember ? (hint 73X37 ;) )
See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene?cmd=retrieve&dopt=default&list_uids=2701
This gap junction protein is crucial for inter-cellulor transport; in short, if you remove it, YOU WILL DIE! (and go to hell...)
So there!
Not only that, but check out the structure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connexin
It's hexagonal- looks just like the snowflakes in BT's biblical links!
Coincidence?? I think not!
Blue Triangle, check out the links, there's a treasure trove of numerology there--you could probably find the entire bible in that one gene! :covereyes
 
It seems Mr. BT has also been posting on RationalSkepticism and getting the same answers he's getting here.
 

Back
Top Bottom