Proof of the existence of God?

I now have absolute certainty that God is real. Now all I have to do is explain it. I will be doing so gradually.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good luck with that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My friend spider I see you have arrived...hmm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am glad that you are certain that god exists. I can understand you wanting to inform everyone of this but this is the wrong section. God belongs in the religion section not the science section. The post was reported.

 

Unfortunately the math is useless because the Prof is psychotic. He believes among other things that this equation revealed to him by God Almighty will defeat Boko Haram.

 

Let's not make this about him I came here to discuss the math please keep it objective.

 

Who is Boka Haram?

 

The "math" (such as it is) is not worth discussing.
As has already been noted in more than one reply.
The guy is a loon.
His "math" is bullsh*t.

 

It's not objective to say mental illness makes math irrelevant there have been many great minds in the past that the general public has deemed mentally ill but that never changed the fact that they still made major contributions to knowledge and human awareness.

 

What are you talking about? It is only about him. His TOE is the ravings of a psychotic person.

Now being objective, it may very well be that God decided to make him the most intelligent person in the world and God gave him the one equation that will transform all creatures into God glorifying entities. However, I think that this is a rather low probability, don't you?

 

Really? Google Boko Haram.

 

Pi is constant in Euclidean (static) space. As soon as things begin either to move or accelerate (or rotate), lengths, including those associated with radii and circumference of ideal circles in Euclidean geometry, contract in the direction of motion/propagation. Relativistic space or space which moves as a function of time is non Euclidean.

The Ehrenfest paradox relates to Lorentz contraction of infinitesimal lengths measured along the circumference of a circle which does not change the length of the radius. The ratio is variable depending on the rate of acceleration, but in all cases, circumference/diameter > pi as measured in the static case.

 

You should buy his book for a mere $199 and then ask your questions because the only math I saw was Gij = God and that was not covered in my math classes.

 

It's obvious you don't in believe God, but if that is your only reason to completely dismiss his claims then the purpose of the op has not been satisfied. So I guess you believe the math is solid but you do not believe the foundation it is built on? So that leaves a consequence of it bieng "bullshit" in your own word?

Ok let's for a moment substitute God with some unchanging constant independent variable then return to the math will the math still hold will there be any holes in the math with this approach.

 

You must have had some motive for starting the thread. At the very least, you find the guy's claims interesting for some reason.

Where have you been hearing about it? My impression is that this guy is pretty obscure. Given the grandiose nature of his claims, there seems to have been very little response in the mainstream academic world. Not only do physicists seem uninterested, theologians and scholars in religious studies aren't excited either. So who is talking about him? In what context? What are they saying?

 

I never arrive, I'm omnipresent.

 

I agree, this comment of yours is my motivation, there are many great individuals that go unnoticed mostly becuase the media is a biased propaganda machine controlled by a small group of people. I don't care about anyone's opinions unless they contain factually sound critism specifically addressing the math. As I stated before if you do not want to use God as the unchanging framework use something else but am just curious as if the math works in the specific context it was introduced.

 

Uh, yes it is. Because the "math" is a product of his deranged mind.
He's done the equivalent of "because Tuesdays are made of blue and sighs 2+2=5".
What he's written is not amenable to a rational scientific approach.

So what?
At least those people didn't let their illness intrude into (or become) their work. This guy, on the other hand, is "using" his insanity as the basis for his work.

I assume from this response that you have comprehension difficulties.
I'll repeat my earlier post (#7 if you want to go back and check): He cannot have a scientific theory that introduces (or concludes with) "god" - and for that matter, nor can anyone else - since there is no scientific evidence (or characteristics or parameters or anything else amenable to science) of "god".
In other words he has no maths as the basis. Sure, he may well have tagged on some actual physics equations but the basis of his claim is founded on insupportable crap.

No, it leaves it being bullshit because it's bullshit.

Uh what "unchanging independent constant variable" (and what's a "constant variable?) is there any evidence for? Where did it come from? How well established is it? Or is it, like Oyibo's, simply introduced because he wants to "prove" his initial assumption and will do anything to arrive at that (and unsupported) pre-formed conclusion?
There are still holes in the maths.

 

I haven't actually seen very much math. Most of the rhetoric on the OFAPPIT website is written in English, often overwrought and not entirely grammatical.

As far as dissecting math goes, I'm not qualified to do that. I haven't had the kind of advanced education in physics that I would need to make sense of a formal presentation of a "theory of everything".

I will say that mathematics is like logic. Even if the chain of inference, the proofs and derivations, are totally impeccable (something I have no way of knowing), the strength of the conclusions that one draws is going to be dependent on the strength of the assumptions that initially went in.

That's where I expect that the biggest problems in Mr. Oyibo's thinking originate. For example, why is he so convinced that his physical speculations have anything to do with God?

 

The link in OP is racist:

The white scientific community tried to question his findings and wrote articles like “Dr Gabriel Oyibo: Genius or Madman?” :But that is what they do; Try to discredit an Original Man when re-introduces to them something that was already invented by the ancient Black man.

WTF is "The white scientific community"? I'm white, but I don't know if "white" scientists would be more offended by the accusation of not seeking knowledge or racism.

This article is crap and probably politically motivated.

Next I could be reading how women are inferior... Screw off!