The New Science of God

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Apostic777, Jan 4, 2024.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Apostic777 Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,391
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2024
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,501
    What is the frequency of reality, in Hz, please?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    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?
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2024
  8. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    Key items like "CMTU" and "Langan" have not appeared yet.

    So I am satisfied for the time being that you are not Nick Hosein.
    _
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    Welcome to sciforums, Apoptic777.
    Who is "we", in this context?

    Is it not the case that different people have come to very different conclusions about the existence of God?
    I suppose you have a book to sell, or a youtube channel to advertise, then? Or have you only published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
    See Sarkus's post on "logical truths".
    Can you please explain what "metric space" is and what you mean by "sub-space"?

    When you say "the mind", do you mean human minds, or something else (like God)? Does, for example, your mind exist at individual points in metric space?

    Your statement seems to imply that one point in sub-space corresponds to many points in metric space. What is the mapping between metric space and sub-space? Can I see your maths?
    Is it? What do you mean by "layers" to reality? What makes a three-layer reality different from a one-layer reality, for instance? Do you have a scientific means for distinguishing what kind of reality we live in?
    The mind would be local (concentrated at a single point, in fact) in sub-space, but distributed in metric space. However, this just seems to be a claim, not any sort of proof of concept, so far. Are you going to give us the logical arguments that lead from your premises to your conclusions?
    I don't know what you mean. How does logic give error, and why does reality work the same way? Can you give an example or two?
    That is news to me. In what way is the universe like a computer? Where was this agreed by scientists?
    What is the processor for "the universe", and where is the "display screen"? I don't think I'm understanding the analogy, yet.
    What do you mean by "resonates"?

    Are you saying the brain literally moves so that at some times it is in the "material world" and sometimes it is in an "immaterial" world? And if so, have you managed to show that the immaterial world exists?

    How do you know that the brain does this?
    Like exchemist, I want to know what the frequency is, in Hertz.

    What does the frequency have to do with your proof of God?
    Thank you. I am looking forward to your detailed replies to our questions.
     
  10. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,028
    There is no science of god, this is something you have made up.
     
  11. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,028

    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?
     
  12. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,476
    Just a long shot...
    The talk of 'reality' in the OP sounds like spellbound's at it again.
     
  13. Apostic777 Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    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.
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    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?
     
  15. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,136
    "A single source.That source is within all of us"
    Hmm,let me guess.4 letters? Beginning with the letter "a" ?

    Latin or english?
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    Apostic777:

    I'm not seeing much science in your "science of God", so far. Do you have any?

    You said that "everything is in consciousness". What, then, is "reality"? Is it distinct from consciousness, or part of it?

    Whose consciousness is everything in? Yours? Or is that where the God comes in?
    Is it a thing, or an abstract mathematical model of a thing?
    That's not at all obvious to me, just from thinking about it. Can you prove it?
    So, the source of, say, Mount Everest is within all of us.

    How did Mount Everest get out of all of us?

    Also, it seems to me that individual human beings don't last forever. In fact, science thinks that Mount Everest was here before there were any human beings. So, where was the source of Mount Everest when there was no "all of us"?
    Are you able to access it? Do you experience Christ consciousness? What is it?
    What's an endomorphism?

    And I take it you're not going to show me the actual math. Why not? Have you actually done any math for your "science of God"?
    Are reality and consciousness both the same thing, then? Why two words for the same thing?

    Doee the math show this?
    You don't know you're correct, then? Your "science of God" is incomplete and/or untested?
    How do you know? Does the math show that?
    What do you mean by "entangled", in this context?

    Isn't it your claim that the mind and reality are the same thing?
    Can you please link me to the logical proof, then?

    Thanks.
    I can't find any agreement by scientists than the universe is like a computer. Can you help?
    Who discovered it? Was the discovery published? Where can I read about this discovery?
    Who proved that the universe has a boundary? Where is the boundary? Where can I read about this?
    I asked you how you define it. You don't need to worry about how I can define it, for now.
    What do you mean by "within". Is there something outside consciousness? Or did you mean to say that everything is consciousness? Your meaning is not very clear.
    Please post the relevant empirical data (or links to it) and the chain of logical that proves your claim.

    Thanks.
    So you're yet to find an actual logical argument. You're just trying to find one?
    Nah. I prefer to think of frequency in the usual scientific way. Frequency isn't energy.

    You didn't tell me the frequency of reality in Hertz. Why not? Did you forget? Or haven't you worked it out yet?

    I look forward to seeing some actual science in your next reply, Apostic777. Because, so far, you haven't posted any.

    Also, when are you going to explain your science of God? So far, you've talked about minds and consciousness and "reality" (whatever that is), but not at all about God, although you did mention something you called "Christ consciousness".

    Where's your science of God?
     
  17. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,476
    60 Hz = One born every minute.
     
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  18. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,028
    Garbled nonsense.
     
  19. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    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.
    _
     
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,501
    Yeah. I wondered if it might be Theorist back in his new guise. But it could also be Spellbound.
     
  21. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,476
    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:
     
    exchemist likes this.
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,501
    Well done. It was the lack of reference to that horse rancher’s CTMU that threw me.
     
    foghorn likes this.
  23. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,136
    The error in reality is the devil, and it caused the fall. When the devil goes downward, those angels move up.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page