Is this proof of trinity in nature


(Pradeep Koshy) #1

PROOF: MIRACLE EQUATION- CAN BE USED TO SOLVE 3 VARIABLES IN A SINGLE EQUATION. MIRACLE EQUATION:
[(NX )² ― {(N―2)X²] = [N―(1―X²)]²―[N―(1+X²)]² = 4(N―1)X²
The above three way related algebraic formulae or equation or Algebraic Identity which is true for all real or complex values of N and X , is actually analogous to the equation
[A²―B²] = C²―D² = E where A = NX , B = (N―2) X , C = [N―(1―X²)], D = [N―(1+X²)] & E = 4(N―1)X² where A, B, C, D & E are five variables. One way of analyzing the same is, if anyone chooses one of these five variables , either A, B ,C ,D or E, the remaining 4 variables can be found out , by applying suitable values (by trial and error) to N and X , in the considered variable and the other variables turn out correspondingly to the same. Viewed alternatively, A²― B² = C ²―D ². Suppose one chooses C=1174 . In my convention C= [N―(1―X²)], I arbitrarily, choose X=15, therefore N = 950, therefore D = 724 , A = 14250 and B = 14220 . B, D and A could be found without calculators and that is mysterious. Even E can be found out. The second case or application is given below. Now , there is an interesting application wherein , we can utilize this equation to solve 3 unknown variables in a single equation. Assuming the 3 variabled equation is of the form ax + by + dz = k where a , b ,d are coefficients and x , y , z are variables and k is the constant . Solution is given by x = A²/a, y = B²/(-b) and z = D ² /d , since equaton is of the form A² ― B² + D ² = C ². Hence the solution to the equation 2x + 3y + 4z = 16 . Here C = 4 . Arbitrarily selected values of N = 1 , X = 2 to satisfy C=[ N―(1―X²)] Ergo , x = 2, y = - 4/3 and z = 4. Alternatively. let us substitute X as any rational number . X can assume infinite values. (Albeit, if X is real ie for instance the irrational number case, we need not get exact solutions and might therefore get only approx. solutions). We could generate different values of N = C + 1 - X² , corresponding to X equal any rational number. We can thereby, get infinite solutions to this equation, since the three variables are related to N and X only. We could resort to algorithm and programming at this stage, since a general equation is involved. Please note that C = √k . PN: When k is a perfect square , calculations are simple. Otherwise, multiply k by itself. For the equation to remain unchanged , multiply each term of LHS by k and then resort to the steps like below . Suppose one need to solve 2x + 3y + 4z = 13. Taking the necessary steps, the equation become s ie multiplying each term in the given equation by k = 13, it transforms into 26x + 39y + 52 z = 169, therefore x = A²/a, y = B²/(-b) and z = D ² /d. Here C = 13. If selected value of X = 2, N = k+1 - X² = 13+1- 4= 10 . Therefore , x = 400/26 = 200/13, y = 256/(-/39) and z = 25/52 .Take another value of X = 15, then N = k+1 - X² = 13+1-225 =. -211, A= NX = -3165 B = (N―2) X = -3195 D=[N―(1+X²)] = -437
x = A²/a = 385277.8846 , y = B²/(-b) = -261744.2308 and z= D ² /d = 3672.480769. Verification 26x+39y+52 z =
169 26(385277.8846) - 39(261744.2308) + 52(3672.480769) = 169 (hence we can obtain infinite solutions to (x , y , z) for rational or real number solutions, but they need not be exact solutions, for set of irrational numbers. Suppose the equation is of the form lx + my + nz = k where if l = a then x = A²/a, if otherwise l = -a then x = A²/(-a) and if m = b then y = B²/(-b). Otherwise if m = -b then y = B²/(b) and finally if n = +d then z = D ² /d, otherwise if n = - d then z = D ² /(-d). Hence x, y and z can attain all sets of values pertaining to real numbers , where a, b, c & d > 0 . Hence, using a supercomputer or quantum computer a billion solutions can be obtained in a few minutes. The above equation can be treated as a Diophantine Equation, since integer and rational solutions of the same are exact. It (Miracle Equation) enhances the trinitarian concept. Well, the negative aspect of this article, someone could argue, one doesn’t obtain all the solutions in one shot but the general solution, which ofcourse is the larger and greater picture and the absolute necessity.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20

0 voters


(Brad Kramer) #2

Honestly, I’m terrible at math and have no idea what’s being said here (although that’s not a judgment on it, just a statement of my abilities).

But I think there’s a huge difference between “a math equation is solved using threes of something” and “the transcendent God of the Universe exists as a community of three persons who belong to the same essence and Godhead”.

Proof is a strong word, especially when we’re trying to move from math to theology.

Is Pi proof that the Godhead exists as a community of 3.14 persons? And so on.

Just my two cents.


(Pradeep Koshy) #3

Dear BradKramer,
In the law of nature ,conventionally one has the possibility to solve only one variable in an equation in mathematics.We see that is violated .Nobody ,even no mathematician is capable of solving 3 variables in an equation.The three unknowns assume significance like in a Trinity of Gods.On the contrary, I do accept your contention to a some extent.But there is some strangeness,since this are attributed to nature and God…Trinity is a tough doctrine,not easy to convince to a monotheistic person. Noetic ratiocination seems to be lacking in simple good faith oriented people.Also,I would
like to add what late Economist Kennneth Arrow opined to reinforce my view Keenly aware that not everything could be known, he wanted what could be grasped to be known as systematically as possible. He summed up his vision in the words of the mathematician Hermann Weyl: “If the transcendental is accessible to us only through the medium of images and symbols, let the symbols at least be as distinct and unambiguous as mathematics will permit.” Or to put it in his terms, we should plan and build as solidly as we can, even if the intellectual ground may occasionally open up beneath us.
Regards
Pradeep Koshy


(Casper Hesp) #4

Hi @07PRADEEP,
The Trinity is a monotheistic doctrine :slight_smile: . So it should be somewhat easier to share it with monotheistic people than with atheistic or polytheistic people.

I agree that this teaching is not easy to convey to sceptics, but I’m pretty sure that God wouldn’t hide evidence for the Trinity in mathematics.

Besides, the equations you have provided are not at all special. Any equation with three variables has an infinite number of solutions. The fact that you find many different solutions actually makes your equation less interesting. Usually in mathematics, you’re looking for sets of equations that allow you to solve for a few unique solutions. As you have demonstrated, your equation does not have any special solutions. You can find billions of them.

So I would say, no, this is no proof that the number 3 is special mathematically.


(Theophilus Book) #5

Since God established in the grammar He is singular in person, no Mathematical exercise can contribute to, let alone prove Him to be triune.

God introduces himself to Moses as a first-person-singular “being;” i.e., there is only one person in the “person-singular” being.

In Exo 3:14 God introduced himself to Moses using singular pronoun, singular verb, singular definite article and singular verb participle.
εγω ειμι ο ων = “I AM THE BEING.”

εγω = first-person-singular pronoun ="I"
ειμι = first-person-singular present active verb ="am"
ο = singular definite article = "the"
ων = Singular participle = “Being”

“Singular” participle means there is only one person in “The Being.”

Again, the number of “Persons” in God is a matter of Grammatical Principle, not comparison definition. No one has to prove God is a person, and no one has to prove God is not three persons, because the grammatic principle deals with precisely that issue. No amount of Mathematical gymnastics will change that.


(Brad Kramer) #6

@Theo_Book interesting. If you don’t mind me asking, what religious tradition do you belong to? You don’t have to answer, but it might help me understand your comments.


(Theophilus Book) #7

My Religious focus is based upon truth,. not traditions of men nor doctrines and creeds of those who would command other souls.

I was raised a Catholic, until I was suspended from Catechism class in the 8th grade; after which I got permission from the Bishop in Seattle to read my bible at home; from which I never looked back.

I remember the day, 67 years ago, as though it was just 67 years ago; I was living in Renton Washington, going to St. Anthony’s Catholic School, and was in the 8th grade; in Catechism class, the nun was teaching about how the missionaries (translate to nuns) were being persecuted in China. (This was after all, shortly after the end of WWII.) I raised my hand and asked how "the persecution of Nuns in China today, compares with the persecution brought about by Torquemada in the Spanish Inquisition. She (the Nun) pointed her initial digit my way and said “I’ll see you after class. CLASS DISMISSED!”

I was only allowed back in Catechism class if I would not ask any more questions. Not my style, even in 8th grade.

So I went home and read my bible, and have so done for nearly 68 years. I spent some productive years in College after a stint in the corps, I learned much that helped me learn to research and learn to comprehend what I had researched, contrary to many who simply research and move on, never understanding that sometimes one’s research is contrary to what one already believes.

I have been a minister in the Church of Christ, and after two debates over the ensuing years, I opted for Home Worship like it is referenced in the book of Romans.

It makes me even more cautious when I do not have anyone to bounce my understanding off of other than my self. But I test my understanding daily on Christian debate boards, and so far, no one has defended Trinity doctrine against the grammatic principles sampled in my prior little post.

Any further questions, and I will not hesitate to try to clear them up. And I do not mind you asking.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #8

I would disagree. Our system of numbers begins with three Prime Numbers, 1, 2, and 3. Three is the last that includes the first two. 1 + 2 = 3. However this in itself does not prove that the Trinity is God, just that 3 is special.

The Trinity or triunity is special because, 1) Monism is not a viable world view, 2) Dualism is also not a viable worldview, and while 3) Triunity has not been accepted as a world view , it combines the unity of oneness with the diversity of twoness so we have the elements that we need in a viable world view.

@Theo_Book
εγω ειμι ο ων = "I AM THE BEING."
On the other hand God (YHWH) did not speak to Moses in Greek and did not say, “I am the Being.” What YHWH said was, “HA YAH HA YAH,” which is translated, “I AM WHO I AM.”

YHWH reveals Godself as the One, Who is Self Created and the One Who Cares about people.


(Casper Hesp) #9

It’s quite arbitrary to say which numbers are the first. What about the number zero? :smile: The addition you name is just a small part of the Fibonacci series, obtained by adding subsequent numbers to each other, starting with 0 and 1:

0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, 4181, 6765, …

The proportion between subsequent numbers converges to 1.61803… which is the golden ratio. Now that is what we call a special number. It pops up everywhere in nature.

As a sidenote, I suppose the number three is pretty important in architecture. The triangle is the most stable configuration for the construction of buildings, bridges, et cetera. It can be used as an illustration of stable relationships. But I wouldn’t consider it as “evidence” for the Trinity.


(Theophilus Book) #10

Of all the numbers used in scripture, I find the following to be significant only by the number of times they appear in scipture:

The number one is found 1967 times in 1695 verses.
The number two is found 835 times in 703 verses.
The number three is found 485 times in 426 verses; 66 of which are NT.
The number four is found 328 times in 282 verses.
The number five is found 345 times in 270 verses.
The number six is found 190 times in verses.
The number seven is found 463 times in 391 verses including
The Number eight appears 80 times in 80 scriptures.
The number nine appears 50 times in 49 verses.
The number ten is found 248 times in 223 verses.
The Number Eleven is found 24 times in 24 verses.
The number b]twelve is found 485 times[/b] in 426 verses.
The number twenty is found 293 times in 262 verses.

I have never seen anyone deal with the “seven spirits of God” when talking about the alleged “number of persons” in one God.

But if the appearance of the number “three” is to be significant in understanding the number of persons in one God, based on the number of times it appears in scripture, then the number one should have no competition, as it appears in scripture more than four times as many as the number three.

So, can we please quit making arguments based on the fact that a number appears “x” number of times in scripture.


(Casper Hesp) #11

As I said before, it’s indeed very arbitrary to judge the “specialness” of a particular number on basis of its occurrence whether it’s in the Bible or in mathematics. It’s even more arbitrary to judge the doctrine of the Trinity on basis of such considerations. So whether you want to argue for or against the Trinity on the basis of numerology, both lines of reasoning are hopelessly flawed.

As a sidenote, the doctrine of the Trinity is monotheistic. So don’t underestimate the importance of the number “one” :slight_smile: .


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #12

@Casper_Hesp, thank you for your response.

I was taught that zero was not a number, but a place holder.

Reading the beginning of The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose, pp. 25-33, I am reminded that the Triangle is the basis of geometry and geometry is the basis for mathematics.

Also that Pythagoras was a philosopher and mathematician based on triangles. Plato had a three fold understanding of reality, the mathematical world, physical world, and mental world which in some ways still seems to make sense.

God created humanity in God’s own Image, so we have real theological evidence that God left God stamp on nature, because humans are a part of nature. Also God pronounced the Creation “Good,” and since we know that only God is Good, this is further evidence of God’s Image in the world.

God is Trinity and thus God’s image, humanity is trinitarian or triune. God’s Creation is Good like God, so in some sense we would expect it to be triune like God.

Math was and thus science is founded on the triangle and geometry. Philosophy is based on the triangle and geometry. These two ways to understand the world outside of theology are based primarily on THREE. The problem seems to be that we theologians are reluctant to press our claim for the revelation of the Trinity that God gives us.

When studying geometry I was fascinated to find that I could work out the other parts of a triangle if I knew only three aspects of that triangle. In other if I had 2 angles and 1 side, I could work out the other 2 sides and 1 angle. Thus if I had two points on the earth that were x milers apart and I could measure the angle of the sun at a given time from both of them, I could determine the distance of the sun from the earth.

This is called triangulation, and it is generally true in all phases of knowledge. On perspective or element is good, two is better, but to have real knowledge you need to have three perspectives. We get into real trouble when we settle for only one or two perspectives and not three.


(Casper Hesp) #13

According to Wikipedia, zero is both a number and a placeholder.

Do you view individual human beings as “triune”? I don’t see how that would work out. I do view relationships between humans as being earthly depictions of the Trinity.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #14

@Casper_Hesp

Humans are body, mind, and spirit. This is opposed to the current dualistic body and mind view. Dawkins proclaims himself a monist by espousing the materialist body only view, saying the brain is function of the body.

It seems that I have read many essays for and against the mind/body dualism. No body really likes it, but no one offers an alternative, since monism doesn’t work. The body affects the mind and the mind affects the body.

I recall during the question session after a lecture on mind/body long ago when I was in seminary, I asked the question, “Where does the spirit or heart fit into this model of humanity?” The answer I received was, “The spirit is a part of the mind.” No way is that true if we are going by the Biblical understanding of humanity.

Human beings are physical, rational, and spiritual. Being spiritual means that we have meaning and values. The New Atheists deny that reality is rational and people have rational values and meaning, because they are materialists. Other people are idealists, based on the life of the mind. Christians bring the body, mind, and spirit together in a dynamic affirmation of all aspects of life. In my book I have a whole chapter on this because there are many misconceptions, but I hope this will suffice.

Yes, human relationships are “depictions” of the Trinity since God is love. We are supposed to love ourselves, so by that measure humans are depictions of the Trinity. We are supposed also to love God’s Creation since it is also a depiction of the Trinity, although not as full a depiction as humans are. This is part of the new philosophy that says that God and Reality are relational, not Being.

I question whether 0 by itself is a number. The Wikipedia defines a number as something used to count. We do not count 0, 1, 2, 3. We always start with one.

0 is a boundary between 1 and -1. 1-10 is the beginning of our numbering system. It is like the discussion as to which year marks the beginning of the century or millennium. After looking at the evidence it is clear to me that year 1 is the beginning, not year 0. There is no year 0 for people or time, there is only the first year.


(Casper Hesp) #15

Where exactly do you find this mind-body-spirit combination in the Bible? Jesus said to love God with our whole heart, whole soul, and whole mind. So then you would have heart-soul-mind.

How do you map mind-body-spirit onto the Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? The fit seems to be rather awkward because I am one person, but God is three persons in one.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #16

Now you are getting into why it takes a chapter to explore the Biblical view of what it means to be a Person. I trust you know that when Jesus was telling peop0le to love God He was quoting Deuteronomy 6:5 (NIV2011)
5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

So the NT differs from the OT. So much for Biblical inerrancy. The reason for this is because the NT writers, writing in Greek, quoted the Greek OT, the Septuagint translation, not the Hebrew Bible. Jesus we think quoted the Hebrew Bible.

The Hebrew OT says, heart (spirit), soul, and strength (body.) The Greek OT says, heart (spirit), soul (?), ands mind. Mark 12:30 combines both lists, which confirms this view.

Christianity brought together the Jewish and Greek world views to create a new Christian worldview. These differences illustrate the difference between the Greeks and Jews and how Christianity reconciled them. Greeks emphasized the mind, while the Jews emphasized the physical. Christianity emphasized both body and mind, and added spirit.

The biggest problem is the word “soul.” It is generally agree that the Hebrew concept of soul is simply the life force of a person, animal, or plant. God created Adam and then breathed life into him. This has little to do with the “immortal soul,” which plays an important part in conservative theology. This is a later addition based on Greek thought, not Hebrew or Biblical thinking. The phrase “immortal soul” does not appear in the Bible.

In the NT we see God as Three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, acting in concert as One, while in the OT we see YHWH as One Person acting in concert through Three, Creator, Logos, and Spirit.

I am my body and my is me. I am my mind and my mind is me. I am my spirit and my spirit is me, but my spirit is not my body, my body is not my mind, and my mind is not my spirit. They are all different, but they are all one as me.

Similarly the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Father is not the Spirit, but they are all one as God. God works not as three Gods, but as One God acting in concert as three Persons, just as I exist as one person with my body, mind, and spirit acting in concert, unless I am sick or in sin.

God the Father is the Creator Who made the body and the rest of the physical world. God the Son is the Logos Who give the universe its rational (mental) form. God the Holy Spirit is divine Love which provides Unity, Meaning, and Purpose to God, us, and all that God has created.

The body is the physical framework of life, the mind is the rational framework of life, the spirit is life itself. This is how created us, in God’s own triune Image, which makes life possible, and also make living relationships possible with ourselves, others, and God Who is the Source of Who we are and all that is.

Are we in agreement concerning 0?


(Casper Hesp) #17

I like the connections you’re making. My ponderings have led me along similar lines. However, some things don’t seem to add up neatly. I’m not a theologian or anything, so I’m just inquiring here.

Do you believe this “triunity” of mind-body-spirit is an important truth? If yes, then why did it come to be replaced by heart-soul-mind so easily in the words of Jesus? That seems to imply that this kind of analytical approach to the constitution of the human being wasn’t relevant to the Gospel.

The correspondence between body-mind-spirit and Father-Son-Holy Spirit seems to be too rough. You say that the Son is “the Logos Who gives the universe its rational (mental) form.” But I suppose you would agree that the Son is much more than that. The Son entered the flesh, in bodily form. If you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father. Now, it is not true that if you have seen the mind, you have seen the body or vice versa.

It seems to me that an individual human being by him- or herself cannot depict the relationships of the Trinity, because one human being is always one person. But God did make mankind in His image just as the Son is the perfect image of the Father (but the Son by Himself does not depict the relationships of the Trinity).

Individual human beings enter into the Trinity by the Holy Spirit, growing in the likeness of the Son, Jesus Christ, being united to the Father.

The point of my small remark on the number zero was that such kind of support like 1 + 2 = 3 depends on your starting assumptions (e.g., “zero is not a number”). I can make similar reasonings that show that the Trinity is contradicted by standard mathematics: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1? For me, that doesn’t mean the doctrine of the Trinity is false. Just that it defies standard mathematics.


(Paul Lucas) #18

No, Solving for 3 variables is not, in any way, shape, or form, the same as having a single ousia with 3 personas (Trinity). It simply means that you can solve for 3 variables and get a unique answer.

Also, if you look carefully, the author’s original equation involving N and X has two variables: N and X. He then says the equation is analogous to (note he did not say “equal to”) an equation with 5 variables. It looks to me that this was done by an amateur mathematician and lacks formal, rigorous mathematical reasoning. He is not getting a solution by the equation, but by “trial and error”, or by “using a supercomputer or quantum computer a billion solutions can be obtained in a few minutes” A “billion solutions” is not very helpful, is it?


(Paul Lucas) #19

I tend to look at this differently. I am scientist, father, and husband (among other roles). Each of those roles are different and means I interact with people differently. Yet each is still “me”. Let’s face it, I’m not going to behave with my colleagues the same way I behave with my wife! In fact, if I did, I would be divorced in short order, wouldn’t I? If I behaved toward my children as I do with my wife, I’d be arrested! (and rightly so)

God has 3 main roles: Father, Son (Logos), and Holy Spirit. God behaves differently in those roles, but each one is God.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #20

Your small remark is an important remark. If starting assumptions are inherently subjective as you seem to assume then any real discussion between persons with differing starting assumptions is futile. It is my observation that starting assumptions are not subjective, even though non-believers may claim this, so real discussion is possible when we verify basic assumptions.

You quoted the Wikipedia as verification that 0 is both a number and a placeholder. I checked out this reference and saw that it contained a reference to the definition of a “number,” which is something that is used for counting. Then I responded to your claim that 0 is a number by pointing out that people do not use 0 alone in counting. We count 1, 2, 3, not 0,1,2, 3. A person is never 0 seconds, or 0 minutes, or 0 years old. He or she is 1 second, or 1 minute, or 1 year old. Thus also the year 00 is not the beginning of a century, but the end of 100 years and 10 is 10 things, not 11 things.

I am not saying and I do not think that the Trinity says that 1 + 1 + 1 does not equal 3. It certainly does equal Three. What it says is that the Three are also One. What it says is that there is unity in divine diversity.

This is most important because this is our task as human beings to create and find the unity in our diverse world. That is the purpose of BioLogos as I understand it, to find unity, but not necessarily uniformity, between science and Christianity.

If we add 1 apple, 1 orange, and 1 banana we get one fruit bowl. Here the unity is not in the number, but in the nature of what we are counting. This is more like the unity of the Trinity, which does not go against standard math.

I am going to wait before I respond to the other point you make. Of course I will also responds to Paul.