# proof God exists

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Noah, Jun 30, 2013.

1. ### AriochValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,274
So you say that they say that the human brain, through no physical interaction with the device, can alter the probability of an event by percent....Yeah, I'm willing to call bull on that.

For one thing, the paper states that the "operators" had no control over when and how a "random event" might be altered. Second there was literally zero learning curve, meaning that the "operators" were no more effective at altering random events at the end of twelve years than they were at the beginning. Finally, the one percent shift doesn't become visible until ALL of the data comes together, and since we're dealing with random numbers this doesn't mean much of anything. This, to me, suggests a source for the "aberrations" was something other than the human "operators".

Furthermore, I'm having trouble understanding how you can have "aberrations" in a truly random series of events, if the event is random then there should be no causative factor and thus no possible "aberration"(which carries an implicit assumption of predictability). If you have a random character generator programmed with the characters of the English alphabet, eventually it will produce, in chronological order, the collected works of Shakespeare, there's simply no way to know when this will occur, but it's occurrence is a certainty. The authors of the paper you cited measured deviations from "expected" results, the problem I'm having(other than the obvious one of trying to wrap my brain around how one can "expect" a random event) is that an RNG should be expected to produce such deviations, sort of like flipping a coin and having it land on tails twenty times in a row. We're talking about over two million trials with these machines, what would be amazing is if we didn't see any streaks or runs in the data. Now THAT would be something I would speculate over, an inconsistent and tiny shift in the data isn't.

Something I'm pretty sure that most people will agree on is that you can't simply will something or someone into or out of existence. It's something that nobody has ever reliably observed.

Not if you give it enough time. Any possible event, no matter how improbable, will occur given enough time.

to hide all adverts.
3. ### rr6BannedBanned

Messages:
635
Common Definition Comes First

An agreement on a common definition of God/"U"niverse comes first, in order to have a rationally logical disscussion of such topic.

Fuller gives us one of the most comprehensive definitions of God known to humans.
..{ see his Lords Prayer in "Critical Path" 1979 }.....

The One Whole--- God/"U"niverse --- has 3 distinct parts;

1) mind/intellect as cosmic laws-principles
---------------------
2) non-occupied space and,

3) occupied space.

#1 above = above the line of differrentiation

#2 above equals below the line of differrentiation

#3 above equals the vectorial line-of-vibration/frequency[/U--- ex ^v^v ---that defines the shape of #2 above, and #3 exists eternally in complementation to #1 above.

Simple, not complex. imho

r6

to hide all adverts.
5. ### wellwisherBannedBanned

Messages:
5,160
There are certain types of data that cannot be investigated using the current philosophy of science. For example, we have all had dreams, which contain various levels of details. Even though dreams are common and a natural brain output, you cannot prove you had a particular dream, since there is no tool in science that can record your dream to verify.

The phenomena is real, since we all had dreams with details, but no dream can be directly proven in all those details nor are any of our dreams reproducible by others, which is also part of the philosophy of science. So what is real, in the sense of a common brain output, is outside the scope of science to prove as real. It requires an element of faith (called soft science) since the only person who can see the details is the one looking at the dream from the inside.

The philosophy of science appeared to factor out internal data (subjectivities) so what remains is only physical realty. If we had a dozen people looking at an event, science would reduce this to what can proven and reproduce able, factoring out subjectivities and other effects of the mind that can't be proven or reproduced. Science only deals with physical reality. In religion, God is not matter so he will not show up with science, but only via the internal reference factored out by science.

to hide all adverts.
7. ### AriochValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,274
What are you blithering about? We most certainly can record dreams, it's called an fMRI. However, just because we can record the various states that the dreaming brain enters, we don't yet have the technology to translate those brainstates into visual images. Just because we can't turn on a computer and "see" exactly what a person is dreaming about doesn't mean that we can't record dreams, nor that the technology that would enable us to do so will be forever out of reach.

8. ### Mr HopeRegistered Member

Messages:
21
I love original questions.

9. ### rr6BannedBanned

Messages:
635
Lords Prayer

"Since 1927, whenever i am going to sleep, i always concentrate my thinking on what i call "Ever Rethinking the Lords Prayer" (Richard Buckminister Fuller)

..."I am confident as specifically argued, my following declaration constitutes a scientifically
meticulous, direct-experience-based proof of God.:"

"Ever Rethinking the Lord's Prayer
July 12 1979

To be satisfactory to science
all definitions must be stated
in terms of experience.

I define Universe as
all of humanity's
in-all-known-time
consciously apprehended
and communicated (to self or others)
experiences.

In using the word, God,
I am consciously employing
four clearly differentiated
from one another
experience-engendered thoughts.

Firstly I mean:_
those experience-engendered thoughts
which are predicated upon past successions
which are unexpected, human discoveries
of mathematically incisive,
to what thereto fore had been missassumed
to be forever unanswerable
cosmic magnitude questions
wherefore I now assume it to be
scientifically manifest,
and therefore experientially reasonable that

may and probably will
eventually be given
to all questions
as engendered in all human thoughts
by the sum total
of all human experiences;
wherefore my first meaning for God is:-

all the experientially explained
to all questions
of all time-

Secondly I mean;-
The individual's memory
of many surprising moments
of dawning comprehension's
of as interrelated significance
to be existent
amongst a number
of what had previously seemed to be
entirely uninterrelated experiences
all of which remembered experiences
engender the reasonable assumption
of the possible existence
of a total comprehension
of the integrated significance-
the meaning-
of all experiences.

Thirdly, I mean:-
the only intellectually discoverable
a priori, intellectual integrity
indisputably manifest as
the only mathematically stateable
family
of generalized principles-
cosmic laws-
thus far discovered and codified
and ever physically redemonstrable
by scientists
to be not only unfailingly operative
but to be in eternal,
omni-interconsiderate,
omni-interaccommodative governance
of the complex
of everyday, naked-eye experiences
as well as of the multi-millions-fold greater range
of only instrumentally explored
infra- and ultra-tuneable
micro- and macro-Universe events.

Fourthly, I mean;-
All the mystery inherent
in all human experience,
which, as a lifetime ratioed to eternity,
is individually limited
to almost negligible
twixt sleepings, glimpses
of only a few local episodes
of one of the infinite myriads
of concurrently and overlappingly operative
sum-totally never -ending
cosmic scenario serials.

With these four meanings I now directly
"Our God-
Since omni-experience is your identity
You have given us
overwhelming manifest:-
of Your complete knowledge
of Your complete comprehrension
of Your complete concern
of Your complete coordination
of Your complete responsibility
of Your complete capability to cope
in absolute wisdom and effectiveness
with all problems and events
and of Your eternally unfailing reliability
so to do

Yours , dear God,
is the only and complete glory.

By glory I mean the synergetic totality
of all physical and metaphysical radiation
and of all physical and metaphysical gravity
of finite
but non-unitarily conceptual
scenario Universe
in whose synergetic totality
the a priori energy potentials
of both radiation and gravity
are initially equal
but whose respective
behavioral patterns are such
that radiation's entropic redundant disintegratings
is always less effective
than gravity's non redundant
syntropic integrating

Radiation is plural and differentiable,
radiation is focusable, beamable, and self-sinusing,
is interceptible, separatist, and biasble-
ergo, has shadowed voids and vulnerabilities;

Gravity is unit and undifferentiable
Gravity is comprehensive
inclusively embracing and permeative
is non-focusable and shadowless,
and is omni-integrative;
all of which characteristics gravity
are also the characteristics of love.
Love is metaphysical gravity.
(eome- note; Bucky has also described love as the synergetic interplay between these
two opposite forces.)

You, Dear God,
are the totally loving intellect
ever designing
and ever daring to test
and thereby irrefutably proving
to the uncompromising satisfaction
of Your own comprehensive and incisive
knowledge of the absolute truth
that Your generalized principles
adequately accommodate any and all
special case developments,
involvement's, and side effects;
wherefore Your absolutely courageous
omni-rigorous and ruthless self-testing
alone can and does absolutely guarantee
total conservation
of the integrity
of eternally regenerative Universe

You eternally regenerative scenario Universe
is the minimum complex
of totally inter-complementary
totally inter-transforming
non-simultaneous, differently frequenced
and differently enduring
feedback closures
of a finite
but non-unitarily conceptual system
in which naught is created
and naught is lost
and all occurs
in optimum efficiency.

Total accountability and total feedback
constitute the minimum and only
perpetual motion system.
Universe is the one and only
eternally regenerative system.

To accomplish Your regenerative integrity
You give Yourself the responsibility
of eternal, absolutely continuous,
tirelessly vigilant wisdom.

Wherefore we have absolute faith and trust in You,
and we worship You
awe-inspiredly,
all-thankfully,
rejoicingly,
lovingly,
Amen."

Last edited: Jul 17, 2013
10. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
You do seem to take a long time to fall asleep!

11. ### rr6BannedBanned

Messages:
635
Long Version of Lords Prayer

Oh, sorry if i was not clear with the quotes. That was Fullers comments not mine. He published differrent versions over his lifetime and that one was from 1979 publishing. He died in 1982 so he may have had later versions published. I dunno.

To best of knowledge Fuller never used words like spirit and soul in any of his writings.

Spirit-1 = physical/energy
ergo fermionic matter and bosonic forces

Spirit-2 = metaphysical intentions of mind/intellect

Soul-1 = biological

Soul-2 = shape/pattern/geometry

God-1 = Universe aka occupied space or Mother Nature or Great Momma

God-2 = "U"niverse aka non-occupied space + occupied space + mind/intellect ex cosmic laws/principles.

r6

12. ### NoahRegistered Member

Messages:
4
Sorry to get back to you so late ... I don't have much internet time.

The nature of the Theory of Body Signals is such that it has limitations. For instance, if you seek an answer to the question, "God, was the chocolate cake I ate late good, or evil," He most probably would not answer. But if you ask, "God, is the doctrine of the 3-in-Trinity in the Nicene Creed true, or not?", better be ready for a surprise!

Test this theory, apply it to the most thorough, rigorous regimin you can think in, and let God develop a relationship with you (if you want one -- no one's forcing anything on you, of course.

Noah

13. ### wegsMatter & Pixie DustValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,603
Wow; well said.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

14. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
You can ask that God proves God's reality. Whatsoever you ask for in faith that will be given. Ask and you will receive. So ask for proof, will it be withheld?

15. ### wegsMatter & Pixie DustValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,603
I think He has proven it to me in many ways over the years.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Some Christians think you shouldn't ask God for "signs." Idk. I do all the time. Lol

Do you believe in God, bob?

16. ### rr6BannedBanned

Messages:
635
Duality, Triality Quadrality etc....

000) Concept/mind/intelligence duality---absolute and relative truths
-----------
001) Space duality---non-occupied space and occupied space

002) Occupied space duality---fermions( matter ) and bosons( forces )
--------------

Biological duality---female( Xx ) and male( X y )
....subset nervous systm and non-nervous system....
------------

Triality----3 viewpoints of closed triangle( ^ ) 3 viewpoints of open triangular set( Y )

r6

17. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
I do. Yes I do. I don't really know how to describe what I believe in but when I asked for proof I got an answer.
But then I see evolution at work too. So as a scientist and a Christian I have to think outside of the box to to make it fit.

18. ### wegsMatter & Pixie DustValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,603
I'm not a scientist but I enjoy science. And I do believe that evolution (the theory of) and faith in a God/Creator can very much coexist.
We think alike on this matter.
<insert the word "wow">

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

19. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
34,419
Noah:

Back again? You have 2 posts.

What name did you use before? Was it Happeh?

20. ### youreyesamorphous oceanValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,830
Happeh was much more crazier...

21. ### rr6BannedBanned

Messages:
635
Comprehension Begins at 6 = 3 + 3 = Female and Male

"Box" = finite occupied space called Universe( fermions bosons gravity )

Humans use their mind/intelligence accessing abilities, to conceptually visualize a finite Universe, and then conceptually place themselves outside/beyond the finite Universe, as if they were a God-like creature/critter, holding the whole finite Universe in their hands.

Our finite Universe of occupied space, exists eternally individually as gravity, fermions, bosons or some combination thereof.

Outside of our finite Universe is pure( untainted ) non-occupied space.

Tainted/abberrated/disequlibrious = fermions, bosons gravity

Mind/intelligence = concepts as relative truths or absolute truths( cosmic laws/principles )

Consciousness = degrees of complexity of integrated pattern sets of awareness, with humans having the most degree of access to the most complex set of mind/intelligence.

Comprehension = minimal comprehension equals a subidivided 2D triangle, with a nuclear center point, which nuclear point can oscillate between either side of the plane, thereby creating a seemingly 3D tetra(4)hedron, which tetrahedron has the minimal 6 lines of interrelationship to have 3D comprehension.

3( female ) and 3( male ) = pure/untainted equilibrium equality of a numerical 1D concept, a 2D space( area ) and 3D space( volumetric area ).

However, given this metaphysical quality as state above, we offer following with the link to a graphic to help to visually understand my following givens;

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s01/figs/f00103.html

The equal female and male are depicted--- my viewpoint not Fullers ---in the graphic on the left showing two chefs hats at 90 degrees to each other.

Female and male, tho equal in a cosmically metaphysical geometric sense of same shape, same size ergo equality, are at there structural optimum, when at 90 degrees to each other, i.e. they define the minimal 3D polyhedral structure of Universe.

The tetrahedrons 6 lines-of-relationship when conceptually spun, to create 6 great circle-like planes, defines three sets of two great circle-like planes that are at 90 degree orientations to each other

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s04/figs/f5511.html

If we go back to the first graphic--- the two chefs hats on left ---we can spin those two at the square middle between them, so that now the female and male are approaching an orientation of being congruently on the same plane of existence.

If the lines-of-relationship between the female and male are not broken then the would have to be strectched/extended and in doing so, we would create 4 spiral/twisted diagonal lines-of-relationship.

Now that begins too complicated to explain and I do not have visuals to help go further with that scenario. Darn!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

r6

22. ### Quantum QuackLife's a tease...Valued Senior Member

Messages:
22,413
well think about it... if God could be proven to exist how would that effect every ones behavior.
Gosh every innocuous lie, fib, falsity, fraud, deception, would become the subject of potential judgement.
If God was proven to exist human freedom to do as needed at the time would be lost.
We would always be "checking with the boss man" every time we made a decision and we would be totally servile and under extreme influence [self consciousness]
By not being proven God can witness the truth in his creation and not a distortion due to his own omnipresence.
And until freewill is guaranteed whether God is present of not he will remain unprovable...

It would be in humanities interests and that of God's that God remains unproven and a mystery. IMO

23. ### NoahRegistered Member

Messages:
4
Testing the Proof

Proving something using the Theory of Body Signals:

1. Proving a thought is evil: Submit a thought to God that is obviously evil: "God, is it good to murder people in cold blood, even if they've done nothing against you?"
The answer should come as "Evil (Left Side action or left side thought)."

2. Proving a thought is good: Submit a thought to God that is obviously good: "God, should I love and help my fellow man when he needs help?"

The answer should come as "Good (Good Side action or good side thought).

Using the results of these control questions, you should be able to discern, with effort, whatever thought is evil versus whatever thought is good.

WARNING: This theory is not perfect.