An Idea

[G_burnett]

Might I suggest Hawking's definition of a good model:

" A model is a good model, if first it interprets a wide range of observations, in terms of a simple and elegant model. And second, if the model makes definite predictions that can be tested, and possibly falsified, by observation. "

... and what then is the model of God? ... do we all forget that we are made in his image and perhaps what that means to interpret. ??

I have excluded the word good here above toe the ponder and question so do not start a war. Can we falsify the human model, the father ... Creator? Only in removal of the exist as being the most important do we falsify God to make us just ... h-u-m-a-n and the father not important to control by others in mind set trying to be the father that knows best when by the interpretation direct and simple it is not the case and it may not be the case.

I have posted as you Pat your ponder toward this and even sometimes have posted the devils advocacy to some ponder .. I see nothing wrong doing this as the ponder. What curtailed this ponder in me over many years was the strange coincidence that when born my Birth registration "number" was given to be 066606 by the Prov of Quebec, Aug 30th 1951 ... am i the one you were warned about? hmm ... some one had to to get the number lol.

just some minor thought this morning before a late coffee.. kind regards all ~ g.

[austintorn@aol.com]

And what is the self contradiction for God??

Some “God” definitions refuted as self-contradicting or are not even definitions:

“God is not definable”.

This tells us what God is not, rather than what God is; so, there is no definition and thus nothing to refute. The word ‘undefinable’ even means that there is no definition.


“God is the universe.”

This is a tautology saying that A=B and so we just as well might say that the universe is the cosmos. As such, it says that God not only does what nature does, but is one and the same with it. A problem here is that this ‘God’ does not follow the common usage meaning of God as a separate being who made the universe and so this definition is somehow trying to slip that in but it doesn’t work. A rose is still a rose by any other name and so is a universe. We already know a fair amount about the universe and so at least that part is defined. It’s just that A=B doesn’t tell us anything, as that is just like a synonym.


“God made Himself.”

This is saying the contradiction that something already made can make itself.


“God is consciousness.”

Consciousness is seen to be the latter portion of a brain process, indeed coming 300 milliseconds after the brain completes its analysis; thus it is as far from being some kind of initial stand-alone thing in itself as it can be.


“God is perfect.”

Again, this is not a full definition, but only of one trait of one not making mistakes. When followed by another fact or trait such as “God made a mistake when He caused the Great Flood and so he invented the rainbow to show that He would never do it again.”, the statements are seen to be contradictory. This happens a lot.


“God is all loving.”

Similar to the previous case, as vengeance is supposedly done on us, this not all love.


“God is the First.”

Taking God as a system of mind—a being, then it is always that systems have parts and those parts have parts, etc. and those lowest parts could be among the first (fundamental),


“God is infinite.”

This is trying to make God very large and all encompassing and thus somehow beyond reproach. One definition of ‘infinite’ comes from calculus in which one can infinitely divide a finite length, and another definition is that of the counting of numbers never ending. There are actual infinities and potential infinities.

This God definition probably means that God has an infinite amount of energy. There are then two problems, the first being that infinities never complete and so this is saying that God, a complete being, never completes. The second is that God uses up all the energy available and that energy is endless and infinite; however, then it would be pretty crowded around here and there would be no room left to move around.


“God is one”

God would then be solid like an unbreakable statue and have no pieces and no movement.


“God made the universe.”

This is fine, kind of, but it begs the larger question of what made God and so it settles nothing, even adding in an unnecessary step. It is not an answer at all, but just a larger question. No one was around at the origin of the universe and so this cannot be claimed.


“God exists, but is invisible.”

This is not known and so it cannot be claimed.


“There was a virgin birth.”

Virgins do not give birth.


“God existed forever.”

Here we have a case of something, actually the ultimate something, being defined as such that was never even defined in the first place, for there was no first place. God’s earliest memory is forever out of reach to Him since there is no first memory. Anyway, it indicates that a forever has already completed, but it is the nature of infinity that it can never complete. This all goes for any kind of thing, as well, even strings.


“God is all knowing.”

Then God faces no surprises, which is fine, but is a pretty boring life. No need then to design a human nature and see how it turns out.


“God is everywhere.”

Then there would be no room for us.”


“God detests evil.”

Then He wouldn’t allow it or the Devil to live


“God micromanages every quark and electron.”

This would interfere with their natural movement. Also, they are always seen to act according to their properties.


“God works in mysterious ways.”

This is a catch-all that permits God to do anything, whether unreasonable, crazy or even against His own Ten Commandments.


“God is outside of time.”

There how was there a beginning of our universe and a sequence of creations?


“God might exist.”

‘God’ is undefined and probably self-contradictory. What is it that might exist? Ideas are welcome.


So, the definition of God needs to be more consistent and full, if it can.


The poor old ageless God who had been here forever knowing everything was never born and so He found Himself not even being able to take credit for Himself being the One and the boss. He wondered where He came from but could never know, for His earliest recollections always eluded Him. (note: so He couldn't know everything.)

He would have made a universe but there was nothing to make it out of since He Himself infinitely used up Everything. Plus, what would be the use, for His designs would be perfect and also He would already know the outcome.

So, He made a square circle.

[Mikal]

Gee Mr. Austintorn would you be Satan himself??? According to all the books only Satan could know that much about what God is or isn't??? No offense you understand....just asking....


Mikal

[austintorn@aol.com]

Why would Satan exist?

[Fredrick]

I forgot to add this, Max, together with my request to scrutinize my theory, I should provide you the link to the info:
http://www.pentapublishing.com/Math.html

On this page (more or less Chapter 5 of my book) you can find the mathematical evidence (presented in tables that are found as links in the web page).

The first 7 tables presented here deliver the entire evidence, accompanying information here describes it in short:


The first table - http://www.pentapublishing.com/images/table1.gif - only sets up some general conditions: it shows where prime numbers are found (in green), while also presenting the natural numbers in lines of six. I take one freedom: I present number 1 as if it is a prime. Except for the first line, prime numbers are only found in first and fifth position. I call these AE-positions.

NB If the images are small, open up the window in which you are viewing the image and it will become fully legible.

The second table - http://www.pentapublishing.com/images/table2.gif - shows which AE-positions do not belong to prime numbers, I colored those red.

These red numbers are the starting point for what I base the evidence on.

In the third table - http://www.pentapublishing.com/images/table3.gif - shows the pattern that AE-number 5 takes while moving down the lines. It zigzags left and right, while jumping lines in a pattern of 1 and 4.

In the fourth table - http://www.pentapublishing.com/images/table4.gif - AE-number 7 has a jump pattern of 4 and 3.

In the fifth table - http://www.pentapublishing.com/images/table5.gif - AE-number 11 has a jump pattern of 3 and 8.

In the sixth table - http://www.pentapublishing.com/images/table6.gif - AE-number 13 has a jump pattern of 8 and 5.

* The jump patterns are full circle (for instance, 4 and 3 makes together the AE-number of 7); and
* The jump patterns are all linked through duplication of one of their numbers with the previous and one with the next number (for instance, the 3 in AE-number 7 is also found with AE-number 11).

Let me do a quick delivery here:
1: 0 + 1
5: 1 + 4
7: 4 + 3
11: 3 + 8
13: 8 + 5
17: 5 + 12
19: 12 + 7
23: 7 + 16
25: 16 + 9
29: 9 + 20
31: 20 + 11
35: 11 + 24

Now, this goes on forever, and all AE-numbers (that are either prime or non-prime numbers in first and fifth positions) have fully knowable jump patterns. Yet, the interesting part is not where it goes, but where it started.

I only used the natural number (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etcetera), but I must use number zero to explain the step of AE-number 1.

That means that zero is always there. As someone mentions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, I have evidence that they did not start at the beginning.

In the seventh table - http://www.pentapublishing.com/images/table7.gif - the jump pattern of AE-number 1 is shown. I adjusted the table so it now starts with zero. Please notice that all information remained the same, otherwise.

Again, that information can be found in the table links within the text at: http://www.pentapublishing.com/Math.html

Now, if someone wants to ignore this information, they are using the capability of what in Math would be that number zero. And that is how the natural numbers - by definition - came to not have zero as belonging to this group (for number theorists, that is): these mathematicians already dead and long gone decided to ignore it. They prefered to look at the numbers as containg something, they did not want to look at numbers as mere positions.

This is the entire mathematical delivery, Max, that I use to build the theory of everything. I have evidence that zero is always there, so I cannot build a theory on a platform of unification (which is 1). The beginning (at least for us on the material side) starts with zero & one, numbers that belong to AE-number 1. Since this is evidence, the ToE must reflect this (unless you want to ignore the evidence).

I asked you to scrutinize the valid theory, but actually the valid theory is based on the validity of the Math presented here. I hope you (and others) will do me the favor.

[Profpat]

Hi Austin;

I started my An Idea with a quote from the Chandogya Upanishad:

" Brahman is Life
Brahman is Joy
Brahman is the Void "

Our founding fathers had this to add:

The United States Declaration of Independence, which was primarily written by Thomas Jefferson, was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I submit the best evidence for God is the fact that from apparent nothing we got not only something ( the universe ) but also life and a purpose and awareness of that life. I'm sorry but any other explanation just won't handle the dynamics given to us other than it came from God.

Best,

Pat

[austintorn@aol.com]

I like the model of the self-made Church of Profpat because then one can makka da rules.

Mine is enjoy and give life and love.


St. Patrick (my middle name)

("St." does not stand for Satan—since I stand against him.)

[leskey]

The very mention of "faith" seems to have triggered much diverse opinion regarding God. There was no mention of God and no intention to provide the impetus to detrail this excellent thread.

Faith is the belief in our memories, our history, who we are. (e.g. identity theft can make life very difficult).

Faith is looking at a mirror or at a photograph and recognizing your own image: "This is what I look like."

Faith is waking up in the morning and knowing that if you put your feet on the floor, you won't fall through it...

Faith is present and probable...it is believing something/anything to be true, eventhough this can change in less than an instant. Without this "probability" there can be no potential, no momentum, no future.

Faith is the underlying foundation; the ground zero.

[G_burnett]

I forgot to add this, Max, together with my request to scrutinize my theory, I should provide you the link to the info:
http://www.pentapublishing.com/Math.html

On this page (more or less Chapter 5 of my book) you can find the mathematical evidence (presented in tables that are found as links in the web page).

The first 7 tables presented here deliver the entire evidence, accompanying information here describes it in short:


The first table - http://www.pentapublishing.com/images/table1.gif - only sets up some general conditions: it shows where prime numbers are found (in green), while also presenting the natural numbers in lines of six. I take one freedom: I present number 1 as if it is a prime. Except for the first line, prime numbers are only found in first and fifth position. I call these AE-positions.

NB If the images are small, open up the window in which you are viewing the image and it will become fully legible.

The second table - http://www.pentapublishing.com/images/table2.gif - shows which AE-positions do not belong to prime numbers, I colored those red.

These red numbers are the starting point for what I base the evidence on.

In the third table - http://www.pentapublishing.com/images/table3.gif - shows the pattern that AE-number 5 takes while moving down the lines. It zigzags left and right, while jumping lines in a pattern of 1 and 4.

In the fourth table - http://www.pentapublishing.com/images/table4.gif - AE-number 7 has a jump pattern of 4 and 3.

In the fifth table - http://www.pentapublishing.com/images/table5.gif - AE-number 11 has a jump pattern of 3 and 8.

In the sixth table - http://www.pentapublishing.com/images/table6.gif - AE-number 13 has a jump pattern of 8 and 5.

* The jump patterns are full circle (for instance, 4 and 3 makes together the AE-number of 7); and
* The jump patterns are all linked through duplication of one of their numbers with the previous and one with the next number (for instance, the 3 in AE-number 7 is also found with AE-number 11).

Let me do a quick delivery here:
1: 0 + 1
5: 1 + 4
7: 4 + 3
11: 3 + 8
13: 8 + 5
17: 5 + 12
19: 12 + 7
23: 7 + 16
25: 16 + 9
29: 9 + 20
31: 20 + 11
35: 11 + 24

Now, this goes on forever, and all AE-numbers (that are either prime or non-prime numbers in first and fifth positions) have fully knowable jump patterns. Yet, the interesting part is not where it goes, but where it started.

I only used the natural number (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etcetera), but I must use number zero to explain the step of AE-number 1.

That means that zero is always there. As someone mentions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, I have evidence that they did not start at the beginning.

In the seventh table - http://www.pentapublishing.com/images/table7.gif - the jump pattern of AE-number 1 is shown. I adjusted the table so it now starts with zero. Please notice that all information remained the same, otherwise.

Again, that information can be found in the table links within the text at: http://www.pentapublishing.com/Math.html

Now, if someone wants to ignore this information, they are using the capability of what in Math would be that number zero. And that is how the natural numbers - by definition - came to not have zero as belonging to this group (for number theorists, that is): these mathematicians already dead and long gone decided to ignore it. They prefered to look at the numbers as containg something, they did not want to look at numbers as mere positions.

This is the entire mathematical delivery, Max, that I use to build the theory of everything. I have evidence that zero is always there, so I cannot build a theory on a platform of unification (which is 1). The beginning (at least for us on the material side) starts with zero & one, numbers that belong to AE-number 1. Since this is evidence, the ToE must reflect this (unless you want to ignore the evidence).

I asked you to scrutinize the valid theory, but actually the valid theory is based on the validity of the Math presented here. I hope you (and others) will do me the favor.

Hmm this is a good argument. the state of zero though to me is the instantaneity quanta of change between positive and negative and never reachable. I am sure that only makes sense perhaps in my own head and comments are welcome.

after thought edit is that in keeping with the faith road, i have no faith in zero, matter was first. IMHO

Kind regards g.

[dipayankar]

That is the contradiction of God. Since there is no way to define God, there is no way to prove the concept.

By not defining God makes it impossible to verify or deny God's existence.