ponderer

I received an email message from the moderator about suspending my account, to which I relied. I ask him to pass on my message. Seems it was too much to ask, so I waited for my account to come unsuspended to pass on my own message. I had been keeping this to myself, but once it got out, I felt I might as well contact someone I could trust to go over it with me, so I could be sure I had done everything correctly. I just happen to have a childhood friend who is quite knowledgeable in the particular area I was working. He specialized in that. We had a discussion and he pointed out where I had made a mistake. (Palm of hand to forehead). So all this discordance was unnecessary. I am retracting my claim to have developed a proof of the existence of God. You can all relax and forget about it. Sorry to have gotten some of you stirred up. Still, I did did not see how it made any difference to anyone's opinion. Without seeing the supposed proof, no one had any reason to take it seriously. It was something I was personally comfortable with, and that I never intended to let out at all. Sadly I reacted emotionally to a challenge letting slip and got dogged over my response. Quite frankly, I felt harassed, about something that I made it clear that I did not care to discuss, with the moderator even threatening me and suspending my account. I made it clear that I did not want to discuss it further on religious grounds, but my religion was not respected. This is a religion forum and if you cannot respect a person's religion on a official basis, I find this to be quite offensive and contrary to standards of human rights. If such harassment is to be tolerated here, I really don't want to be here anymore. I will be leaving now. I wish you all the best.

I have appologized to the forum for making an assertion which I refuse to substantiate. I have conceded your point about forum rules. Yes you are right about that. But that's all you have, and it is not even related to the assertion itself. I am exercising great patience with you. It is good training. Thanks for that. I have needed to learn more patience. In the past I would have torn a strip off you so wide you would be feeling it for some time, using words like pompous, arrogant, and clueless. This is wonderful progress for me. A=B B=C so A=C was not part of the proof, it was just a metaphor to explain the simple english which you somehow failed to comprehend, which really inspires me to feel your competence. You seem to have serious reading comprehension skills. This is because you have a negative filter that must view anything I say as being flawed. Even if nothing said is flawed, but it can be misinterpreted in a way that is flawed, you will do that. If I have not exposed a supposed flawed, so you just assume it. Tell me what part of the simplest geometry lends itself to flights of fancy? Geometry is mathematics. You have read this now explain yourself. It is plain simple english once more. Show your high powers of reasoning and comprehension. What makes you think, anything besides the initial premise and mathematics was used? You have no idea how the math and/or logic have been applied, so you have no basis for being critical of the process. You are making assumptions left and right. All of them negative and critical. But, I did say to condescend some more if it makes you feel better, so I hope you feel better. If you want to be critical and sink your teeth into something, the premise is the first step of the process, the only part you will ever see. Here's your chance to show what a fool I am. Tell me what's wrong with the premise and how it is unscientific and how it shows I do not know what I am doing. That's why I posted it. Forget I claimed to prove that God exists. I have appologized for making the assertion. Now let us set it aside. Pretend that I have come to you with this idea for finding a TOE. Tell me why this is a bad premise for a TOE. Tell me why it makes no sense, and why it fails to take this or that into account. Tell me why such a premise belongs on a theology forum, and is just bad science. Put it to bed before it even gets started. That is all you actually have to go on. It is the only thing you have to criticize besides my refusal to explain further. It is the actual first step in the proof. You want to unload, there is your chance. After the premise that are no other assumptions. After the premise, there is no escaping the conclusion. At first it looks like that can't be right. How can that be? That can't be possible. There must be other explanations, that will come to you later. You retrace and rethink, but once you consider it long enough and look at it from different angles, there is no way out, except to reject the premise. So reject it already. I know you want more to go on, but I have told you why I will not provide it. You have only the intial premise to criticize. You are making unsubstantiated assertions now about me. Now prove you are right, or go somewhere else where attacking other people is considered acceptable. Better yet. Just let it go. Seriously. You don't believe it or in God. Why are you even in a religion forum except to "set believers straight"? Nobody expects the spanish science inquisition! Let me fill you in. It is a science site, and there are many science forums. In a science forum you expect that participants will actually believe in science and have a positive outlook about the usefulness of science and will contribute discussion in that light. Detractors are sent away. In a religion forum you would expect people to believe in religion, have a positive outlook about the usefulness of religion, and contribute to the discussion in that light. I am not posting this is a physics forum or a peer reviewed journal. Just what is your motivation and imperative here? Why are you here? If you cannot offer constructive criticism of the premise, the worst you can say justifiably is that it starts well, but you would have to see the rest of it to believe it. Instead you are being hostile and derrogatory. Even insulting. This is why I said you were being emotional. Your responses are not rational. You are taking it personally for some reason. Say, that's a lot better than pompous, arrogant, and clueless. I'm making progress. By the why I said I did not think you were an idiot. You are beginning to change my mind.

The complexity of an explanation within the premise has at its root the number of distinct substances and the associated dynamic geometric description of their distribution and behavior. I don't understand what you are driving at. The relative complexity of geometric shapes and arrangements is fairly straight forward for the most part. However, as a caveat, we must consider that in a reductionist environment, more instances do not equal more complexity. The introduction of more instances is accepted it they are identical and they reduce the complexity of the root explanation. Thus the existence of electrons, protons, and electrons are accepted even though they must exist in countless numbers, resulting in very complex geometry. There are fewer of them in type, than there are of things that would have to each be considered their own primary substance, if they did not exsist, and their dynamic geometry is simpler than the sum of the countless gross geometric shapes into which they can be assembled. In generating a TOE we are concerned with the root geometry of the system, which may be then employed to manifest all else, and not the overall well know geometric complexity of everything out there. Surely you know these things already. And yes, without knowing the observations you cannot see the connection between the premise and the conclusion. It is why I felt safe talking about it to a point. Outing God would be an offense to God. It is for God to come out if and when he is ready. It is not for me to expose him in a way or at a time that he does not wish to be exposed. I am a guest in God's house, and I really like what he has done with the place, and I would like to make a long term commitment, and stick around. I am sure he has his reasons.

Say what?! I am sure if you think that over you will reconsider. If A=B and B=C, then A=C Certain facts (A=B and B=C) in association will show the obvious (A=C). If you do not consider these facts together (A=B and B=C), you do not see the obvious conclusion. It is how science works. It is how axioms work. It is the way of things. I have no idea what you are intending to say. Every axiom must be considered to be timeless, so that there was for each a very long time before they were discovered, because no one happened to consider the facts together in such a way that the conclusion was obvious. I think you need to reread the premise. You seem to think all the facts are specifically itemized in the premise. It is a premise for a TOE! A premise for a TOE must include the given universe. Perhaps, it should read, "Given the universe we live in and that on cosmological and subatomic scales the simplest explanation is the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be expressed soley in dynamic geometry, and that only the simplest explanatory geometry will be considered, based soley on geometric complexity .... In any case everyone is upset about my refusal to substantiate my assertion, so I appoligize for breaching the forum rules. I will refrain from making such assertions in the future and keep such things to myself. If I wish to share something I have discovered I will go through a publication process.

I was going to edit my post when I saw your reply. When I said "without even knowing me", I meant to say, "without even knowing the reasoning or me". So, you have no basis for believing the assertion, and no basis for disbelieving it, except that it conflicts with your world view, and you are possibly suspicious due to some past experience. And that is of course your objection. That I am not supplying the reasoning. If you are upset/frustrated, it is understandable. You find no obvious connection between the premise and the conclusion. It is the way of things. I do not think you are an idiot. Once you look at the right facts in association something can look obvious. But you have to know what facts to look at. That is not the point. The point is that if I am unwilling to substantiate a claim, I should not make it. It is bound to result in this sort of situtation. Being unwilling to substantiate an assertion is the same as being unable from a functional standpoint, for the observer.

You seem to think I set out intending to prove that God exists, or that I made some sort of logical copout. You imply prejudice that does not exist in the premise, or incompetence/ignorance in applying the reasoning. Your lack of belief in my assertion requires that you attribute these qualities to me without even knowing me. You are making negative assumptions about me and being quite condescending. This appears to be an emotional response based on my refusal to explain further, and the disruptive nature of the assertion within your world view. I am sorry if I have upset you. Have a nice day. Condescend some more if it makes you feel better.

Perhaps you did not catch the discussion in the other thread. The reason that I wont discuss the proof is not because I will think you lost your way by not agreeing with me. It is because it would be an offense to God to prove his existence to everyone. When I say I can prove God's existence, you are left to your imagination. You may imagine some Bible quotes, or some fossil thrown out as proof of God's existence. You are not likely to expect that the proof would be based on the premise shown. At least you now have an idea the proof started on a reasonable footing, with good intentions. Proving God's existence was never the intention. It was a consequence. Thanks

Sorry, if I have not been able to help you in any way. My intention was to allow challenge to the premise, not to explain the proof. I have said previously that I wont do that. I felt it only fair to allow challenge to the premise, on which the proof is based. Like I said the proof itself is axiomatic. There is no need. Since no challenge has been raised on the premise, I see no need to discuss it further. You are simply in a position of believing that proof of God's existence can be shown from the premise, or that I am making a false claim whether intentioned or not. Good luck finding your way.

The existence of anything seems paradoxical. Let us suppose that one thing exists. We ask ourselves how it came into being. This question appears to presuppose that nothing existed before the object since it is the only thing in existence, and without it nothing else exists. We suppose that the object was not made from something else that was destroyed to make it. From this apparent position we must imagine something appearing suddenly out of nothing. This seems paradoxical, improbable, and incomprehensible. There is a solution to this apparent paradox. We may argue that something old was destroyed to make the thing we asked about but that starts an endless series of question about where the previous thing came from. At some point we argue there must have been a first thing that was made without destroying something older to do it. Where did that come from? So, this approach fails to satisfy, because it does not really answer the question how you get something out of nothing. It just dodges the question. Perhaps we can redefine the meaning of nothing. Let us say that something has no fixed dimension and no fixed form, yet at any given instant it has form and dimension. Now let us say you have a whole lot of such things, and that their forms and dimensions intermingle destructively and constructively. Without periodic behaviour time passes but cannot be experienced. Only a series of instantaneous disconnected moments exists. Without consistent form or dimension, nothing has spacial existence. Circumstance do not evolve to new circumstances. Nothing holds form to exist and there is no experience of sequential time, and linear dimensional space. So we have shifted the paradox to something else. A sort of existence without existence. This approach might be more acceptable if we imagine some sort of governance for the transitional movement of such random geometry, for its motivational expression and responsive behaviour. The governance would have to prevent persistent form from arising and yet under very special circumstance allow persistent form to arise. If we suppose that transitional geometric shapes might be partially shielded from disruption, and partially vulnerable to disruption, we might imagine a dimensionless lake of endlessly abortive form taking, where shapes step on each other to form preventing any shape from succeeding in forming. Eventually some exceedingly rare combination works to hold a persistent form of sufficiently high dimension and of such shape that it cannot be assailed from any side, and corrupted by any other surrounding geometry. Here we suggest that physical existence is dependent on persistent geometry, which may form out of a paradoxical nothingness, a sea of varying and transitionally dimensioned and shaped indistinct non-persistent geometry. Persistence would depend on the expression of a rare unique stable geometric configuration. What do you call something that has a paradoxical almost existence, of frustrated shape taking, where one expression steps on any other in the way? I think it's called The Lake of Fire.

We have two accepted practices in physics. One is the application of Occam's Razor, and the other is the reduction of physical events and systems into mathematical models. We may take these two behaviors in physics and form a generalized logical premise for a TOE. On sub-atomic and cosmic scales the simplest answer is the correct one, the simplest answer will be expressed purely in dynamic geometry, and the simplest answer must always consist of the simplest explanatory geometry, judged only by geometric complexity. From this premise it follows axiomatically that God exists. Of course you can always reject the premise, in which case the alternative ultimate explanation must lose comprehension, eloquence, and simplicity, if you can find one. Other arguments about creationism, Noah, the Garden of Eden, etc..., based on tribal verbal traditions, are secondary. The dicotomy between science and religion, is more along the lines, of geometric existence and spiritual existence. As such the real area of contention becomes sociology and religion, where sociologist may contend over moral issues, and social practices. Here we may see a disagreement between instituionalized religion and science.

People have propensities. It is the propensities of a person that show their true inner character or spirit if you will. These propensities are your honest compulsions, and not self control over your compulsions. These propensities change over time as people have new experiences. This can lead a sinner to repent and change his ways, having developed new and more righteous propensities. However, if the spirit does not change in its propensities, no indulgence or bribe, or whatever you wish to call it, is going to appease God. That's my take on it.

A very human centric point of view. You will judge everything based on how well it serves you calling it good and evil. God whom you claim defines good and evil, is declared evil by you, because he acted in a way that may have been brutal to some people. You will judge God. It's all about people, and what's in it for them.

I didn't bring it up. I was asked to prove that God exists. You would like it, and feel smug I suppose, if I would quietly fold and say that I can't do that. but I can, axiomatically from first principles. I am revealing nothing of the proof, only that there is one. It matters little. You will never believe me. I am not beating any drum or trying to convert anyone. I am not trying to make a name for myself. You don`t even have any idea who I am. I am very comfortable. God has blessed me. It is a satisfying personal milestone, little more.

No. Proving God's existance to you would be an offense to God. I said that. You do not consider God in your proceedings. I do. I can prove to you he exists, but it would offend him to do so. Get it? Who here would stand against God, knowing him? Would you stand against God? How then could you ask me to do so? I would rather serve God, than stand against him. It's fundamental. God could reveal himself most convincingly to any and all at any time. Clearly he has chosen not to do so. Is it surprising then, that he would not want to be outed by some upstart? As for being done here, we'll see, but as far as I am concerned, I was finished passing on any useful information some time ago. I answered the OP, then I got asked to prove that God exists. Then I got dumped on for explaining that I could do that, but I wont. Now, I am just confronting the insults. If you do not believe in God, I could hardly expect you to believe me. Clearly that goes without saying. You are free to be as skeptical as you please. That's the idea isn't it? Even if you believe in God, you have no call to believe me. Like I care. shrugs

Even after I have explained why. (shakes head)