The New Science of God

God has been up for debate for centuries. It was only recently that we have come to conclusion on the existence of God. I myself have contributed enormously to the new science of God. Here is a list of logical truths that I have come up with:

1.] The mind exists at individual points in metric space but shares a single point in sub-space. This idea is reminiscent of the idea that reality has layers. It also would explain why non local mind can exist.

2.] Reality gives error the way logic would. Recall that scientists have come to a consensus that the universe is like a computer. Complete with a processor and spatiotemporal "display screen".

3.] The human brain resonates between material and immaterial levels of reality. Reality has its own frequency.

I welcome comments from all of you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Millennia, even.

We have? What is that conclusion?

You have? What, exactly? Where is this "science of God" to be found? Which journals, for example?

The term "logical truth" has a rather specific meaning, in that it is a statement that is true regardless of the truth or falsity of its proponents. For example, the statement "X is X" is a logical truth (and also the Law of Identity), in that no matter what X is, the statement is true.
So, with regard your assertion that you have come up with "logical truths": no, you have not.
I also dispute that any of them are even a demonstration of logic: e.g. none of them contain premises followed by conclusion (such as to be found in deductive reasoning)
At best you have made 3 claims. Whether they are logically supported by premises can not be determined from what you have written. They seem to be wholly unsupported claims, and, worse still, they seem mostly word salad. I.e. while the words themselves are understandable, you will need to actually explain what you mean by the order you have put them in.
For example: what does it mean for a mind to exist "at individual points in metric space", let alone "shares a single point in sub-space"?
What do you mean by "reality has layers"? This seems metaphorical rather than literal, but it is unclear the meaning you are attributing to it.
What do you mean by "non local mind"?
And that is just looking at your (1).

Looking at (2) - Reality does not "give error the way logic would". Reality is what it is. It doesn't contain error. Logic is only the means to reach a conclusion from the starting premises. The truth of a logical conclusion is no more true than the truth of the premises (compare validity with soundness of a deductive argument, for example). E.g. take the syllogism: P1 - All ducks are green; P2 - my cat is a duck; C - therefore my cat is green. This is a logically valid argument, but it is not sound.
So, if you mean something else by this initial assertion, you will need to explain.
Continuing: have scientists really come to the consensus you claim? Care to provide evidence to support this? A widely supported paper, for example?

(3) More word salad that you're going to need to explain, I'm afraid.

Hopefully you will be good enough to provide the explanations, and clarifications sought from just this cursory review. At least if you are serious in your endeavour here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is the frequency of reality, in Hz, please?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who is "we"? And what conclusion do you think we've come to?

What is this "subspace" you speak of?

If it exists. Is there evidence? Or is it merely a supposition?

I'm afraid I don't recalĺ this, despite your confidence that I do. When did I first learn this?

What scientists, and have they really achieved a "consensus"?

Can you provide links to this consesus?

What does this even mean?



Finally, are these things truths as you claim? Or are they ideas you've come up with?

 

Key items like "CMTU" and "Langan" have not appeared yet.

So I am satisfied for the time being that you are not Nick Hosein.
_

 

There is no science of god, this is something you have made up.

 

Just to put this in context.

One problem you have is defining god, there is another thread on here that posed the same question.

If you cannot define something to start with, how do you go about looking for it? Studying it?

There are some claims that god is outside of space and time, that will make such a being impossible to study.

“Science” is a method of finding things out about our universe, you cannot apply that method to things that not in the material realm.


So you cannot apply things like frequency, single point, space, brains, computers and screen to a god.


You can define all of those things, specify those things, apply them, measure them.


How would go about doing that with a god?

 

Just a long shot...
The talk of 'reality' in the OP sounds like spellbound's at it again.

 

Metric space can be thought of as many points that has its origin from a single source, namely subspace which is one point. If y0u think about it, everything comes from a single source. That source is within all of us. But most of us don't access it. If we did, we would experience something called Christ consciousness.

The math can be expressed as a many to one endomorphism. In other words, it maps the source to the target. The target is everything. The source is one thing.

Because reality is both the subset as well as the power set of itself it can be thought of containing itself because it can only serve as its own source and target. So everything in reality, comes from reality. And thus reality exists within reality or is nested within reality.

If I am correct, then the material world is an illusion. And if the mind is a priori, then it can expand beyond the skull. And become entangled with reality. Thus influencing it. Although we lack evidence of this at the moment, it can be logically deduced.

A simple google search would suffice.

In 2017 it was discovered that the universe is a hologram. The universe is isomorphic to the information at the surface of its boundary.

You can define resonates as the scientific definition. It's a crystal clear definition.

Again, if I am correct then everything is within consciousness rather than the opposite.

It's a logical conclusion from empirical data. I'm trying to logically prove my subjective experiences.

You can think of frequency as the energy of reality. Due to the mass - energy equivalence.

 

I have thought about it and conclude that this is a belief of yours, originating from your religious views.

Are you aware that not all people - in fact, not even most - follow the Christian faith?

Are you now going to tell is that yours is the best and everyone else's is dumb?

 

"A single source.That source is within all of us"
Hmm,let me guess.4 letters? Beginning with the letter "a" ?

Latin or english?

 

60 Hz = One born every minute.

 

Garbled nonsense.

 

You need to post a reference to something that integrates an apparent hodgepodge of items into a coherent conception. As it stands, you seem to be throwing in dashes of everything from Kant to holographic principle to simulation hypothesis to externalism to metric space, and treating that mix as a jumble of magical gesticulations that somehow conjure the Abrahamic God.
_

 

Yeah. I wondered if it might be Theorist back in his new guise. But it could also be Spellbound.

 

So, if you say " I have come up with:" that makes you Spellbound. My bold above.

Two quotes below saying the same thing: One Apostic777 and one Spellbound

Spellbound:

 

Well done. It was the lack of reference to that horse rancher’s CTMU that threw me.

 

The error in reality is the devil, and it caused the fall. When the devil goes downward, those angels move up.