A Logical Proof for God

Hi, everyone,

I thought up this logical proof a while ago and I'm happy to receive feedback, criticism, or whatever comments anyone has. I'm interested in solidifying my theory so it holds up against severe scrutiny as any valid theory should.

Here goes:

Proof of God by disproving the contrapositive of "God does not exist, randomness created everything."
This is the position of the a-thiest, it's right there in the name: "a-" is a prefix meaning "not, anti-, etc." A-sorted chocolates, not sorted chocolates. Muse means "to think, ponder, consider;" therefore, an a-musement park is a place to "not think, ponder, or consider," aka "entertainment, fun, goofing off." So, a-thiest literally means "no God."

So, the "no God" folks must then believe that randomness - which they call nature - is the reason for all matter.
If God exists, then our universe is 100% intelligently designed, or, conversely, 0% random.
If God dose not exist, then our universe is 0% intelligently designed and 100% random.

Anything less than 100% random means the remaining percent is still God.
99% random, 1% intelligent design/God.
Atheist means 0% God, 100% randomness.

Now, at the moment of the Big Bang (again, I'm arguing from the atheist side to disprove their argument), there was no matter and only waves of energy radiating out from "space zero," if you will.
In a 100% randomness environment, let's say enough energy comes together and manages to form the smallest possible particle of matter; let's use an electron (and leave quarks and whatnot aside).

So, the very first electron forms and (anthropomorphically) announces "Hey! I'm the first electron!" Instantly, 100% randomness comes along and says "Not anymore, blabber mouth!" Who knew the universe was so mean?

We know that 100% randomness cannot produce 100% consistency - since they are literally the defined opposites of each other.

Yet, our universe is 100% consistent in every location we can obverse. If our technology were sufficiently sophisticated, we could pour the water from a bucket and predict - with 100% accuracy - the final resting point of each molecule of water.

Our universe is 100% consistent and 0% random. Proof by disproving the contrapositive. Since we know that 100% randomness does not exist, we can prove God - the source for intelligent design - is the reason. QED

If anyone can see a logical fail in this, I'm happy to hear it. I've thought this through quite thoroughly and I feel my logic is solid.

Thank you, for reading.

Cheers,
Brian

Hi Brian, I enjoy your thoughts on this! Very interesting. I would note that when talking about God and all that we are going to have to accept that the best we can do is come to some philosophical or atleast personal perspectives on things and know we aren’t going to be able to “prove” anything. I mean, I’m open to proof, but this has just been my experience with ideas regarding spiritual and religious philosophy. The arguments don’t seem possible at our current understanding to get past a conceptual stage and into a “tangible proof” stage. Personally, I’m okay with that. We may not be supposed to “know” about God, and instead are meant to wonder and speculate on ideas. So, with accepting that (for myself, anyways), I still love wondering and talking about such matters and am happy to throw my two cents in!

The first problem I see (again, my personal thoughts) with your argument is in thinking there either is or is not a god. Instead (in my opinion) one should simply look at the world around you and wonder what is going on. How can I explain life. Experiences. Start with observation. God may (because we don’t have a control group, we don’t really know) be a purely cultural construction of our times. There may be other ways of explaining our world beyond “god or not god.” This view reminds me a bit of thesis vs antithesis, where controllers have us pitted against each other. We’re taught this atheist vs theist.. Might there be some other possibilities? Could life have spontaneously created itself? Or perhaps even, “evolved?” not through natural selection as the Darwinian theory says, but through a “creative living force within life”? One that “chose” and “designed” the body through many generations. This intelligent force is itself simply another force contained within life itself. If this is the case, I’m sure the mainstream timeline of evolution is still wrong (simply because there’s no way to know, so they’re basically just guessing), but evolution with a creative intelligent force behind it is not actually out of the question. The very fact that we don’t have tangible proof of a creator yet we see the creation could lead us to think the creation created itself. But that’s impossible, we think. Things can’t create themselves. Where do we see that? Well, if nature did create itself then nature itself is the primary example of this. We are just misunderstanding its nature. Of course, humans create things, but not nearly to the scale of life. Yet, in a way, that too is an example of life creating itself if you consider the thing that was created to be a continuous form from the thing that created it. My point is mainly that there are many possibilities than just “God” or “no God” if your open enough.

You describe the world as orderly. And I agree, there is certainly order. Patterns. Logic. Form. But, why do you say there is no randomness at all? There is obviously an element of random, or chaos in our world. Throw a bucket of water, as you say. It splashes about randomly. You assume if we simply had a super duper computer we could calculate every water droplet's movement precisely. And that’s what we’re told. But why do you automatically assume that? Maybe you can’t calculate it exactly. not because your computer “isn’t good enough”, but because there is an actual, literal, force of chaos acting within that system of splashing water thatmakes it impossible to calculate it exactly. Because if you could, then it would (by definition) not be chaotic!. Maybe this force of chaos makes ‘“decisions,” if you will, based more on random choice and chaos. How does it work? I don’t know. Perhaps this “force” (or principle) is “alive”? Living things are the only things we’ve observed to be able to choose freely, so it could be. In any case, we do observe a randomness or chaos in the world. Whether because we “cannot predict exactly” or because it is a real force is not known, the results are the same; a world that has both order and chaos. although according to quantum theorists (which you can of course take with a big old grain of salt, but) they say you cannot accurately predict exactly how anything will move. They claim other reasons, such as multi-dimensions. And maybe. But as I said, it could be a fundamental force. Quantum mechanics does support this. Either way, it is what we observe. The world is not perfectly orderly. There is a strong element of chaos or randomness too. Though, to me, this actually is more in line with a creator; A perfectly ordered world would not feel alive. For example, where do we observe perfect order? Not in nature, but in machines. Non-living things. If God was a robot, our world would more likely be extremely orderly. If he was pure randomness then we’d have a totally chaotic world. But, instead, we see a balance of chaos and order. Very yin yang. This makes things interesting. Trees and plants grow not perfectly but there’s elements of perfection within them. So there’s a beautiful balance between order and chaos in our world. What does that tell us about if there’s a God? I don’t know it really “proves” anything, it’s more just an interesting observation that might lead us closer to truth. It’s why I think you’re coming at the problem wrong. We need to spend more time just observing our reality instead of fighting dichotomies that are probably purposeful made by the corrupters or atleast exploited for their gains.


One interesting observation is that every culture does practice a religion. And they all have very similar elements. There also seems to be an underlying need in humans to experience spirituality on some level. It unquestionably can lead you to a more healthy and peaceful life if you feel “spiritually fulfilled” (what that means specifically, is everyone’s personal philosophy). This makes me think there probably is some sort of truth to spirituality. But exactly what that is I’m not sure and it seems that no one does for sure (atleast until we die). Some theories could be that there are higher “dimensions” (for lack of a better word) around us that we can tap into and seem to resonate with on some level. It could be we have a soul. I don’t know how literal that is. It could literally fly out of our bodies when we die and return to the oness of God. Personally I like the theory that we are all creators in training and our powers have been purposefully limited while we are placed on earth to practice our creative efforts while first learning how to empathize and love others. Because without this it could be very dangerous to just have a bunch of super powerful creative beings. We might go through several lifetimes before we learn the lessons necessary. Again, I have no proof, it’s just a fun theory.

It could be there once was a single religion that everyone knew. Not a religion, but maybe a singular truth of spirituality that we all knew about. And then this was forgotten, or shattered by the corrupters into all the religions we know of today. So now we’re like gathering little shards of truth trying to fit them back together. It could be that the secret societies know of the real spiritual truths. Perhaps alchemy, rituals, magic, and resonance are part of it. And they hide these truths from us to use them as power. But that could all be a self-deception psychologically self created and exploited by the controllers so we don’t see the obvious; that old boring people in suit and ties are exploiting the lives of millions, driven by the pressures of profit pushed by corporate industries. They might also dance around and drink blood. But their crimes are just as evil if at the end of the day they just go home and just watch TV. The “devil” seems less obvious to me. If there are real rules to magic and spirituality then there is a hope we could learn them. I’m currently doing my own experiments on the effects of positive thinking and intention to see if there’s anything to it, because I think it could be real but honestly it could be bs too. I’m optimistic, but realistic. I’ll find out more from the results.


A slightly less hopeful theory is we could be in a “fish tank” terrarium of sorts. The “God” that created us might be off attending other things. Or died, and we’re just still growing in an old jar. Or he may be caring for us. Higher life forms do seem to show greater empathy for lower. Insects will eat their own. A rat may care for its babies. And a dog may even adopt kittens to care for them. Humans might even save a bug! Of course, we can do great evil too. But no dog would ever consider the life if a bug, where humans regularly will. Even still, this really doesn’t solve the question of who then created God? Well, he could have just always been. Or there could be several layers of “higher” Gods above that God. The “highest” God may be the one true God that helps all. I hope! Anyways, because we don’t know we kinda each get to decide, which is kinda cool! (Thanks God, lol). So I think I’ll go with the “Creators in Training” theory for my personal religion.

Logical proof of God is, at best, a human label on something that we are otherwise completely, physically incapable of understanding in totality. Imagine an ant crawling across the hoof of a horse -- the ant lacks the physical sensory ability to comprehend that the hoof is part of a larger corpus, while the horse did not even sense the presence of the ant.

The words "Proof" and "Logical" are becoming meaningless and saturated with fallible interpretation. Proof may be supported by evidence, but doubt will always exist, so absolute proof is absolutely unattainable. Logic is often misconstrued as common sense or easily-obtained knowledge.

An age-old existential logical reasoning exercise, known as the Omnipotence Paradox, describes that God, if omnipotent, should be able to create a stone so heavy that even He cannot lift it. God, if He is the most pure of morality, cannot sin. God, if He is the most knowledgeable, cannot forget. God, if He is omnipresent, cannot cease to exist. So, if God can't lift the stone, if God can't sin, if God can't forget, and if God can't cease to exist, then God fails to meet the human definition of godliness.

God does not need to meet the human label or definition of what a god is supposed to be. God suffers not.

@Oliver_Bestfall

Really? Literally *everything* is a human label. Therefore, stating that fact is useless.

I did not say this theory granted any sort of understanding of God. It is only a proof that without *absolute* law, that nothing could even exist and you turned turned the conversation to existential nonsense.

1 + 1 = 2 is easily proven; mathematically and logically.

Logic is similarly defined via truth tables:
0 | 0 = 1
0 | 1 = 1
1 | 0 = 0
1 | 1 = 1
And so on.

Just because people make mistakes, that doesn't unravel the entire premise of either logic or proof.

There is zero doubt that 1 + 1 = 2. Now, one could argue that 1 + 1 = 10 Binary, but everyone - other than you, it seems - would recognize that we simply write numbers and know that we mean Base 10. We just don't write Base 10 every time we write numbers.

That is the dumbest straw man paradox I've ever heard. We could just as easily use "unmovable force meets unstoppable force." These things cannot coexist in our limited scope of reasoning but God - being outside of our pathetic reasoning, gross physical nature, and feeble perception - could do all of these things in a way which is vastly beyond our reasoning.

To use "human definitions of God" is *already* flawed: we cannot even fathom a single limitation for God - much like the ant.

When we say "omnipotent," we have no actual concept of what that means in the same way we cannot truly comprehend infinity.

Let's use the infinite universes nonsense to illustrate:
An infinite number of me stays home and watches tv while an infinite number of me also go out and rob a store. At the same time, an infinite number of me prevent the robbing of a store. While an infinite number of me are being robbed at that store. And so on.

We lack a proper concept for infinity and utterly fail to properly define it in the same way that our definition of "omnipotent" is equally flawed.

I was not attempting to label anything; you don't need a label to prove an apple is on a table, you merely use the already defined words to describe the situation as we observe it. However, even those words are flawed. We should call apples tree seed containers, or red orbs of solid moisture - but then, those are more words which are also flawed.

Do you see how utterly useless such reasoning instantly becomes?

I'm not *defining* God, I'm not *labeling* God, I'm not *limiting* God. I'm simply showing how laws of physics - Laws of God - were needed even to facilitate the chemical chain reaction of an explosion, such as any sort of bang. The fire tetrahedron - more flawed definitions, right? - is needed for any continuous explosion. A 100% random environment couldn't even sustain this reaction beyond an instantaneous spark - which *also* requires specific laws of physics/God.

Nothing you said had any effect on my theory.

Logic and proof both exist in spite of human failings; you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm not really sure what you were trying to do with your existential red herring, but I don't appreciate the massive deviation. If you have an actual point to make either for or against my theory, then let's have it. Otherwise, can we keep the vague meta talk to a minimum?

Hi, Tree,

First off, thank you, for your well-thought out response. Shame we're not having this discussion over a beer or two.

I meant proof as in the mathematically model, not that I have physical proof. I've take a lot of math and I forget this is not common speak outside of a mathematical environment (translation: my friends and I are super nerdy).

God is the name we give the creator of our environment. He is not a being in any way we can even begin to conceive. I'm simply using known words to describe my thoughts in a way which is best understood. It's fair to presume this is an acceptable word to use in such a discussion.

I'm not sure why there is such a focus on the words used rather than the concept I was attempting to illustrate.
Electrons don't even exist; it's just a word we give to a tiny amount of energy which behaves in a certain way. Photons don't exist, that's just the threshold at which we can detect the lowest level of light and we had to draw the line somewhere. This is why the slit experiment makes sense without either the "multiverse" or the "collapsible waveform" lies. Energy is always a wave, we just can't detect the waves. Do we say "there's no water" when looking at a smooth lake because we can't detect any waves? Light energy is everywhere but we can only detect it at a certain threshold based on our technology.

The bottom line is that *something specifically created* our environment. Even calling that entity God is utterly flawed since we can't even begin to scratch the surface of understanding Him - even saying "Him" is completely stupid since only physical beings have gender - which we don't even truly know and only have the Bible for such information.

There are only two possibilities: randomness created everything, or an intelligence did. There is no other option.
Since we are all tiny slivers of this intelligent creative force, a.k.a. God, then you could argue "we create ourselves" but, since we're part of this intelligent force, it was still God's intentional doing and not a infinity set of random, unintelligent accidents.

The water illustration is proven time and time again. A single molecule of water will flow along the exact same microscopic path provided it begins in the same spot under the same conditions. Our inability to determine this on a larger scale is limited by our technology. Any flow of water follows the same path under the same conditions. This is why chemistry is absolutely perfect. The exact same number of molecules mixed with another exact amount of reactive chemicals produce the exact same amount of energy released in the exact same intensity, motion, and results.
100% consistency in every case we can measure without fail, in every condition, under every situation we can test.
Our sloppy technology is the issue. We can't throw a ball the same way every time, but a computer can. How? Because it's 100% consistent from the electricity used to drive the mechanical throwing arm, to the motion of the arm, and the trajectory of the ball. Issues arise in differences in the ball; the state of the air in the area of the thrown ball; and so on - again, our sloppy technology.
If you wanted to argue that a robber "randomly" selected his mark, even that fails since the robber was limited to those around him, he choose NOT to rob his friends, chose a mark he could overpower, and so on. A bullet fired into the air is also not random: the angle of the gun, the force with which you resist the recoil, the varying amount of powder in the cartridge itself, and on, and on, and on.
These are exact results we could reproduce with sufficient technology.

"a-" is a prefix meaning "not, anti-, without" etc. A-sorted chocolates, not sorted chocolates which is why they're all different. A-musement park, not thinking park since "muse" means to "think, ponder, consider" etc. Therefore, a-theist literally means "without God" since theism means "with God." These words, and those who embody them, are literally at odds with each other, diametrically opposed, if you will.

Order is found in literally every place we look in nature: plants grow is mathematical spirals matching the Fibonacci sequence; geometric shapes are found in cross sections of other plants, bee hives, and so on; even stars have siematic forms exactly matching frequencies expressed in water.
We have yet to find a truly random objects, creature, or form of energy.
Let me know if you find anything which behaves in a completely random manner and I'll take a look.

Again, multi dimensions is just a lie they use when they can't explain away some phenomenon which proves we're on a Flat Earth and the center of God's attention. No one can even test, let alone prove, anything these priests of sciencism tell us. They claimed to have created a device which can move a single electron. Did you see their cartoon image? I've seen more sophisticated flash games.

Our environment is perfectly ordered. The stars rotate 1/day with slightly slowed pace than the sun's 1/day which is also slightly faster than the moon which is why it catches up every 28 day. The sun remains in each constellation for 30 days. The Procession of the Constellations occurs exactly every 72 years so that the sun is 1 degree ahead and completes a full revolution, as observed by the location of the sun's position at the summer solstice after (72 * 360 = ) 25,920 years, where it return to the start of the exact same constellation. This is known as a Great Year.
These are 100% consistent, predictable, and flawlessly repeated year after year, decade after decade, century after century; Polaris is perfectly positioned at the absolute highest point over our environment and is visible through the same tunnels (such as the small hole through the 8" Georgia Guidestones and various old world clocks (Stonehenge, etc.) and all other stars create perfectly circular paths around it - except the Wandering Stars which the controllers have renamed as "planets." Polaris is always the same; the stars have predictable movements across thousands of years; eclipses repeat in exact cycle, with perfect timing, every 18'ish years; and so on.
These are not coincidences, random alignment of imaginary rocks drifting in an imaginary void, or any conceivable sort of accident. This is designed down to the exact detail on every scale. It is irrefutable that we are in an intelligently designed environment.

I've always liked the "Creators in Training" idea as well. I suppose it's effectively the same as "returning to the source"/"returning to God." Hey, maybe their are multiple dimensions and we all eventually get to manage our own version of earth once we're sufficiently enlightened.

I agree: there wasn't a specific religion, we all just knew about God and carried on .. until the controllers took over at the last Great Reset and hid God from us, created the many broken religions, languages, and races - not like genetic engineering, we're all humans, they just started calling us by different names to foster distrust and division as you've rightly assessed.

I'm pretty sure I misunderstood your point on "crimes being just as evil" because it reads like you mean murder is equally as evil as lazily watching TV.

I presumed pretty much everyone here was on board with FE which kind of needs a firmament, of sorts, which some call a terrarium. Some barrier exists to hold in the atmosphere - there is no atmospheric/gaseous pressure of any gas without a container. Gasses cannot exist next to a vacuum without immediately filling that vacuum. Gravity is no match for this effect like so:
Take a plastic bottle, place your mouth so you can suck the air from the bottle, and then place the tip of the bottle into water and watch as the feeble vacuum - made by your weak, human lungs - pulls the water straight up into the bottle. Further, it will hold it there indefinitely without needing any further energy added to the system (such as a pump for either the air or water). If your human lungs can utterly defy gravity for an indefinite period of time, then certainly the absolute vacuum of space would absolutely strip every shred of matter from our earth.

Or, you know, keep believing in the most selective force in existence: "gravity."
The science doesn't add up. However, buoyancy and density perfectly explain why things float or sink in any medium. Less dense things float in a medium of greater density. We see this in water of differing densities and people even use that to create liquid thermometers - yet another example of perfect, consistent behaviour of liquids at exact, measurable temperatures having exactly predictive density changes.

100% consistent; 100% logical; 100% flawless; 100% absolutely *gorgeous!*

Super long; thanks for reading and for your response.

Cheers!

KyriosMora wrote:@Oliver_Bestfall

Really? Literally *everything* is a human label. Therefore, stating that fact is useless.

I did not say this theory granted any sort of understanding of God. It is only a proof that without *absolute* law, that nothing could even exist and you turned turned the conversation to existential nonsense.

1 + 1 = 2 is easily proven; mathematically and logically.

Logic is similarly defined via truth tables:
0 | 0 = 1
0 | 1 = 1
1 | 0 = 0
1 | 1 = 1
And so on.

Just because people make mistakes, that doesn't unravel the entire premise of either logic or proof.

There is zero doubt that 1 + 1 = 2. Now, one could argue that 1 + 1 = 10 Binary, but everyone - other than you, it seems - would recognize that we simply write numbers and know that we mean Base 10. We just don't write Base 10 every time we write numbers.

That is the dumbest straw man paradox I've ever heard. We could just as easily use "unmovable force meets unstoppable force." These things cannot coexist in our limited scope of reasoning but God - being outside of our pathetic reasoning, gross physical nature, and feeble perception - could do all of these things in a way which is vastly beyond our reasoning.

To use "human definitions of God" is *already* flawed: we cannot even fathom a single limitation for God - much like the ant.

When we say "omnipotent," we have no actual concept of what that means in the same way we cannot truly comprehend infinity.

Let's use the infinite universes nonsense to illustrate:
An infinite number of me stays home and watches tv while an infinite number of me also go out and rob a store. At the same time, an infinite number of me prevent the robbing of a store. While an infinite number of me are being robbed at that store. And so on.

We lack a proper concept for infinity and utterly fail to properly define it in the same way that our definition of "omnipotent" is equally flawed.

I was not attempting to label anything; you don't need a label to prove an apple is on a table, you merely use the already defined words to describe the situation as we observe it. However, even those words are flawed. We should call apples tree seed containers, or red orbs of solid moisture - but then, those are more words which are also flawed.

Do you see how utterly useless such reasoning instantly becomes?

I'm not *defining* God, I'm not *labeling* God, I'm not *limiting* God. I'm simply showing how laws of physics - Laws of God - were needed even to facilitate the chemical chain reaction of an explosion, such as any sort of bang. The fire tetrahedron - more flawed definitions, right? - is needed for any continuous explosion. A 100% random environment couldn't even sustain this reaction beyond an instantaneous spark - which *also* requires specific laws of physics/God.

Nothing you said had any effect on my theory.

Logic and proof both exist in spite of human failings; you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm not really sure what you were trying to do with your existential red herring, but I don't appreciate the massive deviation. If you have an actual point to make either for or against my theory, then let's have it. Otherwise, can we keep the vague meta talk to a minimum?

Brian,

Your first post said that you were happy to receive feedback. But this kinda seems angry and stuff.

I just wanted to tell you about that time when God made a really big rock.

But, then, you got all heavy, man.

KyriosMora wrote:Hi, Tree,

First off, thank you, for your well-thought out response. Shame we're not having this discussion over a beer or two.


Cheers!

For sure! Would love to grab a beer with a fellow flat earther! I’ve actually never really talked to someone who’s really awake to deceptions in person. Would be nice. Too bad this stupid fear virus has everything shutdown.

Mathematical proof. Gotcha. Yeah, I’m pretty familiar with most concepts in math. I took it throughout college, but yeah it’s not my go to usually. So you might might need someone else to test the math side of your argument. I sort of view math as just another lens to view the world through. And it will get you good results within its limitations. But when dealing with “God” and kind of theory of everything quaestions I find mathematics to provide less satisfying of answers. Although this could be because I’m just less comfortable with it. I wonder what is the best field to view God and TOE theories through? It could be that there is not one and each field whether mathimatics, or Art, or music, or psychology will each provide its own interpretation that is never quite complete. Just a different lens. Though if I had to pick one I kind of feel like “philosophy” is probably at the most basic of academic fields (although, I think a strong case for psychology could be made. Perhaps that is the more “feminine” side). Interestingly, there’s one strange thing that seems to support this idea that philosophy is at the very foundation of learning; go to Wikipedia and search for any article at all. Could be, “apple” or “oceans” or “monarchy” or “George Orwell” anything at all. Then follow the first link from that article (that isn’t a pronunciation link) and it will take you to another article. Surprisingly, if you keep doing this it will always eventually take you to “philosophy!”. Isn’t that strange? Seems to be hinting that everything is built off of philiosophy! Anyways, it’s pretty interesting atleast.

Most of your arguements actually make sense to me. I’m just running with some of your ideas. And of course offering some opposing points. But yeah, I can see the logic in your argument. I just have a way of questioning almost everything (even myself! Which can lead me down some bad rabbit holes). So don’t mind my oppositions. Yeah, I get it, “God” as a concept of creator. Not just human based. Makes sense to me. .

KyriosMora wrote:
I'm not sure why there is such a focus on the words used rather than the concept I was attempting to illustrate.
Electrons don't even exist; it's just a word we give to a tiny amount of energy which behaves in a certain way. Photons don't exist, that's just the threshold at which we can detect the lowest level of light and we had to draw the line somewhere. This is why the slit experiment makes sense without either the "multiverse" or the "collapsible waveform" lies.

I’m with ya there! Seems to me there’s little evidence of an actual photon or electron. Of course “something” is going on, but we don’t have it all mapped out like people think. But most people do not know this. They manipulate the masses with pictures, complexity, and authority. Most people don’t realize how swayed we all are by psychological tricks.


Why do you say all energy is a “wave”? I’ve heard this said before and I get the analogy. But I have some issues with science claiming almost everything is a “wave”. A “wave” is not a thing, it is simply an observed phenomenon when the surface of water goes up and then down in succession across the surface of water. Where do we ever observe “waves” other than on the surface of liquids? Sound is heard not seen. Radio, microwave, X-ray, light, etc, on the electro magnetic spectrum do not actually go “up and down” like a wave, that is simply how they are represented on paper to show their degree of energy. Perhaps describing such things as a “current” would be more accurate. Or a “motion of energy” or something. Idk, I just feel like “wave” is probably inaccurate. Even as a propagation wave this doesn’t really make sense to me. This is basically (theoretically) a chain reaction of things bumping into each other. But how do you have a bumping chain reaction before there is anything there? In other words, there must first be a continuous line of radio “particles” that stretch from you to the target before a “wave” can be propagated across them. So then how does this first line of particles reach the target? If it just “travels” then why add the additional step of it then creating a “wave” once the line of radio particles has been established? Just call it a “flow of energy”. Idk, that’s just my thoughts on waves. My big-picture point with them is they use “waves” very often to describe invisible energy and when examined closer it feels inaccurate and like there’s something more to how radio, light, sound, etc. travel.

Yeah, I agree, the double slit experiment has many flaws. As does almost every famous physics experiment when critically examined (as far as I’m able to understand of them).

KyriosMora wrote:
The bottom line is that *something specifically created* our environment. Even calling that entity God is utterly flawed since we can't even begin to scratch the surface of understanding Him - even saying "Him" is completely stupid since only physical beings have gender - which we don't even truly know and only have the Bible for such information.

Yeah, I get ya. Something seems to have made this place. Makes sense to me too. Yeah, it’s easy to get caught in our human terms of God and all, but the basic idea is something seems to have made this place.

KyriosMora wrote:

There are only two possibilities: randomness created everything, or an intelligence did. There is no other option.
Since we are all tiny slivers of this intelligent creative force, a.k.a. God, then you could argue "we create ourselves" but, since we're part of this intelligent force, it was still God's intentional doing and not a infinity set of random, unintelligent accidents.

Pretty much agree. Not sure I cut it quite so strongly but it doesn’t seem random to me either. I do maintain there’s possibly elements of randomness throughout the design, but that could be purposefully designed.

KyriosMora wrote:

Our inability to determine this on a larger scale is limited by our technology.

My point is we do not have this ‘perfect computer’ so we don’t actually know if ‘randomness’ is a flaw of our technology or an innate principle of our reality. In other words, randomness may spontaneously arise even if we tried to account for all variables. Or it may not. We simply don’t know and can’t test for it at this time.

KyriosMora wrote:

Order is found in literally every place we look in nature: plants grow is mathematical spirals matching the Fibonacci sequence; geometric shapes are found in cross sections of other plants, bee hives, and so on; even stars have siematic forms exactly matching frequencies expressed in water.
We have yet to find a truly random objects, creature, or form of energy.
Let me know if you find anything which behaves in a completely random manner and I'll take a look.

You describe things that have elements of order. They also have elements of chaos. No flower grows in perfect symmetry. Though certainly it displays a great deal of order within it. But when it dies it crumbles to bits and seems to suddenly become more chaotic. Of course, as it decomposes and becomes fertile soil for more flowers then it flows back into being more orderly..
my point was not that the world was totally chaotic but that it seems to me to be best described as a sort of flowing balance between order and chaos. It’s not an argument against a creator. God created good and evil, the same way he created order and chaos.

KyriosMora wrote:

Again, multi dimensions is just a lie they use when they can't explain away some phenomenon which proves we're on a Flat Earth and the center of God's attention. No one can even test, let alone prove, anything these priests of sciencism tell us. They claimed to have created a device which can move a single electron. Did you see their cartoon image? I've seen more sophisticated flash games.

Totally agree! It’s crazy what they pass out to us as proof for things they’re doing at the subatomic level! Just a little critically questioning into their methods and it just all falls apart. High priests of scientism is right! Haha. Yeah, use your own God given common sense to discern for the truth. We have the right to decide for ourselves what makes sense as proof in our eyes for such absurd claims.


You know, just to taper my disagreement a little, I think we probably both have a general same understanding of these things. But I’m probably looking at it from a more right-brain feelings look while you’re describing it more left-brain logic look. I associate perfect order with machines and inhuman things so my conclusion is there must be a God because I don’t see perfect order, I see bits of spontaneousness. Of improvisation of nature. Of surprise. You could call this ‘chaos’ but that’s sort of a derogatory term for these things. To me these elements of uncertainty found in nature feel “alive” because I experience them when doing art, or social interactions. They break up the monotony of pure order. But perhaps for someone more analytical thinking they would see order as more the living aspect of reality, and chaos as an antithesis to this. They see the world as logical problems. Mathimatical interactions. Perfect symmetry in design. An ordered life. Chaos seems to destroy all this. It’s also adopted as the driver for evolution so that doesn’t help. So it would perhaps seem to an order minded person that order is intelligence therefore God must be totally orderly because God created this world and he is perfectly intelligent. So, anyways, I could be wrong on that analysis, but it’s just a feeling I got. I know we aren’t so simple as right-brain left-brain but there is an element of truth in this philosophy I think.

KyriosMora wrote:

I've always liked the "Creators in Training" idea as well. I suppose it's effectively the same as "returning to the source"/"returning to God." Hey, maybe their are multiple dimensions and we all eventually get to manage our own version of earth once we're sufficiently enlightened.

I hope so! We will all find out give or take a hundred years.

KyriosMora wrote:

I agree: there wasn't a specific religion, we all just knew about God and carried on .. until the controllers took over at the last Great Reset and hid God from us, created the many broken religions, languages, and races.

I agree that seems likely.

KyriosMora wrote:

I'm pretty sure I misunderstood your point on "crimes being just as evil" because it reads like you mean murder is equally as evil as lazily watching TV.

Lol yeah sorry that was badly written. I meant that I think we assume the corrupt rulers at the top of our world’s control must be literally drinking blood and doing satanic rituals because that is the only way we can justify their cruelty. But I was saying we should not be surprised if they are actually very ordinary acting people that choose not to go to the trouble to see the damage they are doing. Or just justify it to themselves. And that they may actually more easily hide from us by not looking so obviously evil if they just dressed in plain clothes and led more normal but super wealthy lives. There could also be an actual satanic force too. And there probably are actual satanists who do those blood things, but it may not be all or even most.


Yeah, I’m with ya on the gravity pseudoscience. Eric recently did a video very well debunking it you may have seen. There’s so many lies from academia, I just basically decided to start over and think things through by what makes sense to me. The things I haven’t had time to investigate yet I’ll leave at “undecided” for now.
From what I can see,  most of the evidence seems points towards there being a creator of some sorts, and besides it does seem to have a positive effect on my life to believe in a creator, as long as 1.) it’s not controlled by a religion 2.) it doesn’t leave you feeling powerless or irresponsible. But yeah, my views on a creator only enhance my life so seems logical to believe in one.


PS apologies this response is so long! I get wordy. Feel free to give a shorter response if you would like. Either way is fine

Oliver_Bestfall wrote:

Brian,

Your first post said that you were happy to receive feedback.  But this kinda seems angry and stuff.

I just wanted to tell you about that time when God made a really big rock.

But, then, you got all heavy, man.

It's like I presented the chicken and the egg argument and you came in with "well, what exactly *is* a chicken..."

If you reduce everything to "man made labels" of "purely existential abstraction" then you're not actually responding to anything I've written, you've gone into a pseudo nihilistic debate that has nothing to do with either chickens or eggs.

You were not responding to my theory, you were deviating into existentialism, presumably, to show off your cleverness. We can see that. Mission accomplished.

I was not "putting God into a box," "labeling God with flawed human language," or anything else.

My argument is simply that 100% randomness cannot produce 100% consistency. 100% randomness means 0% God, and anything less than 100% randomness *still* means God filled that remaining percent.

I feel I was exceedingly clear on this point and you're talking about "human labels are existential nonsense compared with God" - which I agree with, but it has nothing to do with my point.

Look at Tree's comment and my response; (s)he made direct points about my examples and I responded in kind. You wanted to derail the discussion into existentialism while not even addressing any of my points.

It's like I was doing an oral book report in class and I started with "the book I read is called.." and you jump in to say "what, exactly, is a book? How do we know that book is even properly called a book?"

What am I suppose to do with that? If you want to talk existentialism, I'm totally game, but that has nothing to do with my argument: 100% randomness cannot produce 100% consistency. Since our environment is 100% consistent - even if it's only 99% or 50% or even 0.00000000001% consistent, that still means God manipulated that percent. Our environment is easily 99% consistent - I affirm it's 100% but that's impossible to prove because we can't test every condition of the infinite possibilities - which means God had established laws of physics (Laws of God, rather) before any matter could even begin to exist.

Your response didn't include any counter points to that argument; it was totally off the rails. Therefore, it's clear your response was not intended to actually provide feedback but to let you showcase your cleverness in philosophy. It's akin to a comedian's heckler, just philosophically so.

If you have counter points to make, I'm happy to hear those. I was not looking for a philosophical discussion on human labels. Illustrate my logical errors, not philosophical ones.

Hi, Tree,

Yeah, us True Earthers are still quite spread out - mostly due to the insane level of ridicule which comes from defying the status quo. For a people who claim freedom is paramount, they sure hate free thinkers.

That's super interesting about the philosophy linking.

Hey, that's the foundation of a free thinker: question everything.
Exactly, run my logic to its conclusions and help me see where I may have gone awry. That's the whole point of finding the truth. You may point out a critical flaw and I'll abandon this idea entirely. Everything is up for debate, scrutiny, and analysis.

Right? Like vehicle mechanics call it "hole flow" to track positive to negative, but everyone else uses "electron flow" from negative to positive. Same thing, different *lens*. Ha!

On waves. Again, just feeble human language used to describe complex concepts. A wave in energy is more like Sine waves. Which, when applied to water at the energetic level, fully explain actual waves, but anyway.
While I cannot prove this, I believe energy waves are actually 3 dimensional. They're not zipping back and forth according to their wavelengths or whatever, they energetic source is forcefully compressing the atmosphere (they call this high amplitude) until the pressure/force of the energy cannot compress the air any further and then - equally and oppositely - the air pressure pushes back (low amplitude). The energetic "wave" loses some of its intensity in this exchange and it continues to push through until completely dissipated by the atmosphere.

You're right, it's not really a wave. It's a 3D propagation of energy through a vibrating medium. The more the medium can vibrate, the further the energy will travel. All of this is affected by resonance, density, temperature, and so on. We say energy moves in a straight line, but that's only the strongest point of the energy. They ignore the rest by calling it "side lobes" and other excuses. I was a radar tech for the Navy, that's how they explained it.
The closest visual example of this is watching a bullet in super slow motion: you can see the air being compressed in "waves." If you took a side view slice, you would see the air creates a series of ripples in the atmosphere - like on the surface of water. This same compression/expansion is happening in 3D but we have to illustrate it somehow, so Sine waves are used to facilitate understanding.
This is also why space is utter bunk: energy cannot travel without a medium. Even when experiments are conducted in "vacuums" they never explain that there are degrees of "vacuum" and even NASA trillion dollar vacuum chamber is several orders of magnitude *less* than space.

Here's the chart for vacuum pressure:
https://www.industrialspec.com/images/editor/1707-degrees-of-vacuum-levels-chart.jpg
Here's NASA trillion dollar vacuum chamber specs:
https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/facilities/sec/#capabilities
Notice that this overpriced propaganda machine "sustains *high* vacuum." Emphasis mine. What's the chart tell us for "high vacuum?"
High vacuum is from "about 10^-5 to 10^-8 whereas "space" is 10^-9 to 10^-17.
-8 vs -17. Even if we're generous with their system since that -8 is actually "Hard Vacuum" and NASA is only "high vacuum."
These are not even *remotely* close. This proves we cannot even create the conditions of space in which to prove that energy cannot propagate through emptiness. They had to invent "dark matter" to explain this away. Pfft. Laughable at best.

I mean, we're just using the best words we can to illustrate our environment. We have to use something or we have nothing.

On the order of "not random:" the sun rotates overhead to mark days. The moon rotates overhead to mark months. The stars, for seasons and years.
The sun is slightly faster than the moon, catching up every 28 days (13 x 28 = 356 days, an exact year until they butchered it with this 12 month garbage) that we then call the New Moon. What's also interesting is that during this 42 hour "New Moon" period, we cannot detect the moon at all; not with infrared, not with spectrometers, not with anything. Anyway.
The stars rotate at a slightly slower pace than the sun so that in exactly 72 years the sun lags from one celestial arc. For example, on the summer equinox if the sun is at the start of, say, Capricorn, then exactly 72 years times the arc radius of the constellation (360 / 12 = 30 on average - we're a bit off set, but we'll do that later), so 72 * 30 = 2,160. This is known as an Age. If our sun was in Capricorn, we would call it the Age of Capricorn -- we are, however, in the Age of Aquarius as observed in the summer of 2016 when the sun entered the zodiac of Aquarius.
This pattern repeats until the sun passes through all constellations (72 * 360) which takes precisely 25,920 years. This is known as a Great Year. This was the hoopla around the Mayan Calendar just before 2016. People thought it was weird they would have a calendar for 25,920 years and, yet, stopping at 2016. There was no "stop," this is simply the point at which the clock of our earth has fully reset and the summer equinox will see the sun rising in the exact same position under the constellations as it did 25,920 years ago. The cycle then repeats. This is why the Mayans had no need of any other calendar; they knew to simply carry on with the exact same calendar perfectly predicting eclipses, seasons, and so on.

Eclipses, by the way, are also on a perfectly repeating 18 year cycle. With enough data points, one can perfectly predict all future eclipses even without a shred of knowledge of anything else.

This shows an immense degree of precise creation, order, and logic. Every culture from the Old World knew these things as simple facts. It's only now that people question the existence of God.

On Randomness: Yeah, that's pretty much the flaw. That's why I used proof by disproving the opposite. You can't prove unicorns *don't* exist because we can't search everywhere - maybe they live in the depths of the oceans, or in massive ice fields we can't explore, etc. However, if you had one unicorn, then that is enough to "disprove the opposite assertion" that none exist. So, instead of proving God, I disproved randomness, the opposite of intelligent design.
Since we can prove 100% consistence in *anything* we can then disprove 100% randomness. Chemical reactions are absolutely flawlessly consistent, but I've already gone into that.

Incidentally, did you know the Bible references unicorns? Many of the translations are "corrected" but the animals are clearly described, such as in Daniel 8:5 talking about "a goat with a prominent horn between its eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground." Maybe unicorns are higher dimensional creatures and we've lost the ability to perceive them because the controllers have weakened our own spiritual frequency.

"Nothing grows the same." Actually, when given the exact same conditions, they will grow in the exact same way, again, we cannot control enough of the variables - or, at least, no one has done so. You would have to control pressure, angle, exact amount of sunlight from the exact same angle, the exact amount of water molecules, even the exact arrangement of the soil. Again, impossible to prove.

On order and chaos. Sure, I'm fine with a bit of true randomness; I only need to show that *anything* is 100% consistent to debunk 100% randomness. We simply don't have a single example of a truly random event occurring. Everything has an exactly predictable change anytime we have the technology to explore it fully. But, hey, maybe some things have 0% randomness while others are given a bit of leeway - maybe completely so. That's why we keep asking questions, keep analyzing assertions, and poking holes in any claim. It's the only way to find truth.

On subatomic stuff: Right? And people just hit the "I believe" button and move on. What happened to their ability to question their reality? Children question *everything*! It's what children are known for doing every day - until the indoctrination system crushes their curiosity into rubble.
I agree, I definitely feel I'm looking at this from a very left brain fashion - they sure crushed my childhood creativity, but I'm reclaiming it.
I like where you're going with the logical vs chaotic order of things. Perhaps the only truly random actor is this entire environment are living things. Derren Brown puts psychology to the grindstone by showing how he can manipulate people into very specific behaviours with the right nudge, here or there. I highly recommend you digging into his videos - there are *tons* - and he's magnificent. He has these four racetrack bookies walk into a massive warehouse of 32,000 photos and he tells them to wander around and select a picture. Before they head off, he hands one of them four envelopes and instructs him to mix them up and hand them out to the other three, keeping one for himself. They take their envelopes and have a wander. When they return, he asks them to stand on one of four numbers on the ground. He then reveals that the envelopes contain the exact picture they selected - supposedly at random - and they even stood in the exact order he predicted. That one is Derren Brown The System. That dude is a bloody genius. Watch it, he'll blow your mind.

Ha! I figured I misread that part. I'm sure it's a mix of everything: some support evil acts unknowingly - look at all of the Millennials who support *communism* - some probably dabble in only simple crimes (extortion, money laundering, insider trading, etc.), while some engage in absolute horrors and they know exactly what they're doing because they've signed over their souls in blood contracts, colloquially known as the "20 Million Dollar Club."
Those are the people who absolutely know they are opposing God - and these are not even the worst of the offenses, no, it's really just the beginning.
Some pop stars have admitted they were invited to this club and a few have spoken out about their refusal to join. One said "I draw the line at signing any contract in blood."

It's the same in every organization: the sales rep doesn't know what the CEO is doing. The church goes have no idea their deacons are raping children. It's always the way.

There's something in their religion that they cannot force you to sign: coercion, manipulation, and whatnot are all fine, but, in the end, you have to do it willingly. They're also required to tell us what evils they're doing so they use movies like Hostel to reveal their behaviour - that's not just a horror movie, it's a documentary.

Again, their beliefs don't prove God exists, only that *they* believe He does and they've intentionally chosen Satan.

The "elite" have been consuming the blood of children since they took control. Now and again, such evil are exposed and the people rise up to end their satanic rituals. One of the most famously savage instance is Hungarian Countess Elizabeth Bathory who would slaughter dozens of children to bath in their blood - literally a porcelain bathtub of blood.
http://elizabethbathory.net/
However you explain such an activity, it's most certainly satanic. All bibles from all religions (except satanic ones, obviously) abhor the act of consuming blood and are directed by their various names for God to never consume blood; which is exactly why satanists do it. It's a direct affront to God.
Like how they love to go after children, the most precious and innocent forms of life and they murder them before they're even born. They even admit that each abortion is a sacrifice to moloch - the baby eating aspect of satan.

Most are duped, some know what's up but can't stop it, a few know exactly what's going on and they indulge in such evils.

No apologies necessary! This would have been a conversation over beers until the bar closed and kicked us out. Haha.
Super interesting. I appreciate the conversation. It all helps us close in on the truth. And, I agree, I have quite a few issue where I'm "undecided pending further evidence." I think that's a healthy approach. It's better than arbitrarily settling on one side by default.

Cheers, brother!

KyriosMora wrote:

Oliver_Bestfall wrote:

Brian,

Your first post said that you were happy to receive feedback.  But this kinda seems angry and stuff.

I just wanted to tell you about that time when God made a really big rock.

But, then, you got all heavy, man.

It's like I presented the chicken and the egg argument and you came in with "well, what exactly *is* a chicken..."

If you reduce everything to "man made labels" of "purely existential abstraction" then you're not actually responding to anything I've written, you've gone into a pseudo nihilistic debate that has nothing to do with either chickens or eggs.

You were not responding to my theory, you were deviating into existentialism, presumably, to show off your cleverness. We can see that. Mission accomplished.

I was not "putting God into a box," "labeling God with flawed human language," or anything else.

My argument is simply that 100% randomness cannot produce 100% consistency. 100% randomness means 0% God, and anything less than 100% randomness *still* means God filled that remaining percent.

I feel I was exceedingly clear on this point and you're talking about "human labels are existential nonsense compared with God" - which I agree with, but it has nothing to do with my point.

Look at Tree's comment and my response; (s)he made direct points about my examples and I responded in kind. You wanted to derail the discussion into existentialism while not even addressing any of my points.

It's like I was doing an oral book report in class and I started with "the book I read is called.." and you jump in to say "what, exactly, is a book? How do we know that book is even properly called a book?"

What am I suppose to do with that? If you want to talk existentialism, I'm totally game, but that has nothing to do with my argument: 100% randomness cannot produce 100% consistency. Since our environment is 100% consistent - even if it's only 99% or 50% or even 0.00000000001% consistent, that still means God manipulated that percent. Our environment is easily 99% consistent - I affirm it's 100% but that's impossible to prove because we can't test every condition of the infinite possibilities - which means God had established laws of physics (Laws of God, rather) before any matter could even begin to exist.

Your response didn't include any counter points to that argument; it was totally off the rails. Therefore, it's clear your response was not intended to actually provide feedback but to let you showcase your cleverness in philosophy. It's akin to a comedian's heckler, just philosophically so.

If you have counter points to make, I'm happy to hear those. I was not looking for a philosophical discussion on human labels. Illustrate my logical errors, not philosophical ones.

@KyriosMora

Your initial, opening phrase states that you were "happy to receive feedback, criticism, or whatever comments anyone has." Your concluding statement was such that you implored us to look for a "logical fail" in your statement.

I provided my criticism of the word, "Proof", because the word has become corrupted. I provided my feedback on your use of the word, "logical", again because the colloquial use of that word has rendered it meaningless. I provided "whatever comments", describing an age-old logical reasoning debate on the Omnipotence Paradox as something you might want to ponder.

You then dismissed my feedback with sassy snaps, including baby-bathwater, red herring and vague meta talk. As such, you do not seem happy to receive my feedback, you do not welcome my criticism and you did not seem to want to consider my scrutiny at all. You seem un-happy with me, which is evidence of a direct contradiction to your own opening statement.

I am not troubled by your retorts, I am troubled by your failed attempt to disprove a contrapositive. Your initial stance was that atheists adhere to a bedrock principle that God does not exist and randomness created everything -- this is a flawed, sweeping assumption based upon your own interpretation of what atheists believe.

Meanwhile, you further mischaracterize the big-bang as randomness. On the contrary, the big-bang posits that there was once an infinitesimally small, precisely-ordered non-random pinpoint of singularity which then exploded into everything which is traveling inexorably toward a perfect, universally-harmonious entropy.

You have not logically proven God. You have simply dismissed atheism because it is not 100% random. Dismissing atheism does not prove God.

You further concluded that the "universe is 100% consistent in every location" which you then describe as intelligent design. This conflicts with Flat Earth and Heliocentrism, as the extent of the flat-plane of existence, the universe or even an omniverse is as yet unknown; therefore, you cannot logically state that there is 100% consistency in every location.

There is no evidence that any known cosmogony can currently model or even reasonably describe EVERY location.

In conclusion, you asked for feedback, critcism and whatever comments that anyone has, imploring this forum to look for those points at which the logic might fail. I have provided what you asked for.

Please consider this my respectful reply.

@Oliver_Bestfall
Alright, I'll accept that mistake: I should have written "any comments, etc., *related to my argument*."

Fine, the word proof has been corrupted by every scientist in existence, every non-scientist in existence, and anyone else who could possible count as neither.
..I hesitate to write that. I can already see your reply on that: "there is only "a" or "not a."
I mean .. it's just tiring, man.

So, fine; the word is corrupt. What should I use, then? Evidence? A musing? A fun idea?
*I* didn't corrupt the word, professor, I'm using it in the mathematical form and then used math to support my claim. 100% randomness cannot produce 100% consistency. Since that also requires logic to know that randomness is the (likely corrupt) opposite definition of consistency. Therefore, it's a "logical proof."

Did I corrupt any of those words or am I simply using their lexicon definitions to relay my thoughts? You know, the literal purpose of words.

Why is this even an issue? If my argument had something to do with the calendar, would you say "well, the Julian calendar is a corruption of the true calendar which has 13 months of exactly 28 days."
I mean .. if you pick apart every word used, then nothing means anything and language becomes useless.

On atheism:
I literally explained the lexicon definitions - with examples - of why a-theism literally means "not God." Well, if God is the intelligence and "not God" is the lack of intelligence, then what else could have created things?

Either it happened randomly, or something made it happen.

How about you tell us what third option could possibly exist instead of crying about my mean comments?

On the Big Bang:
That's all just bunk. You can't prove any of it and you have to "believe" that any of that is even possible. We can't even tell the weather from 100 years ago and you believe these random "scientists" know what happened trillions of years ago?
And, in the same breath, accuse me of blind belief?

The Big Bang could have only come about through an intelligence acting upon matter/energy, or zero intelligence did. Zero intelligence is randomness. You can't call it "natural law" because that's God's domain, too. Anything working towards a goal is intelligence. Randomness has no goal, no progress, no point; only randomness.

Nothing exploded - in spite of not even having laws of thermodynamics because, again, randomness has no consistency.

Omniverse:
So, because you *believe* in an omniverse - without a shred of proof, by the way - then you can now use that to pick apart my universe comment. Seriously, man?

Everywhere that humans can travel, detect, or measure is 100% consistent: molecules behave in predictable patterns 100% of the time. There has never been a time that someone boiled water and it changed into mercury - or anything other than hot water (plus it's vapour, of course).

Further, I don't have to prove 100% consistency, I need only show that consistency exists *at all* to disprove 100% randomness. Again, 100% randomness cannot maintain consistency for *any measurable amount of time.*

And, no, it does not "conflict with FE and Helio." Again, I need only disprove one case to break the theory. We can see 100% consistency everywhere we measure. That means this environment - however its shaped - was not created by 100% randomness. Since intelligent design is the opposite of random "design," as it were, we can conclude that intelligence is the reason for the laws of nature. We call that - also corrupt word - God so we can talk about it.

I think you're applying philosophical logic to my math problem. I don't have to "test in every conceivable location" - I only need proof that consistency exists *anywhere* to disprove 100% randomness. That's why this a "proof," in math, one need only show 1 case where the formula fails to debunk said formula. That's what I've done. 100% randomness could not maintain consistency oven any measurable time frame.

Clearly, you have an issue with this basic premise. What else is there other than "something created a rock" and "randomness created a rock"?

You tell us, then. Stop telling me how I'm wrong and tell us *your* perfect understanding of the universe. Uni-verse; it's right there in the name: one-verse. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." That's one verse. Our universe.

You haven't really refuted anything with proper arguments. All you're really saying is "you're wrong."

If atheism is not your definition of 100% randomness, then *tell us what is your definition.*

It's like pulling teeth just to have a proper debate.

I'm quite sure *this* is *not* what I asked for.

So, to summarize:
- How do you define atheism without randomness?
- What other words are corrupt? Can we even use "corrupt" or is that corrupted, too? Where does it end?
- If a rock exists; it was created by an intelligent being, or it was randomly created. What other option is there?

Brian, your own words:

"I'm interested in solidifying my theory so it holds up against severe scrutiny as any valid theory should."

You want to solidify your theory? You don't have a theory. You have not followed any methodology at all.

You advised in a reply to Tree, that your Logical Proof is such that you can "mathematically model" the existence of a deity, and you further state that you often forget that people below your mathematical knowledge level do not understand the crafting of a Logical Proof.

Your claim is that you have taken a lot of math. You state that, "Electrons don't even exist" while later describing the precise, ordered consistency of chemical reactions yielding consistent, non-random results. You think that you have proven mathematically that God exists, but electrons do not exist.

As of right now, the only math that you have provided is a peculiar use of percentages as adjectives to describe the contrast of randomness versus consistency. I simply do not accept that your use of percentages mathematically demonstrates the existence of a deity.

Attack me if you must, but you were the one who started this string on this forum. You asked for feedback.

I replied. You attacked.

I replied again. You attacked again.

In your first post, you wrote, "Who knew the universe was so mean?"

Well, pardon me for being the first electron, Brian, but your universe is very, very mean.

None of us know. And we have been so a-custom to talking with people that attack our theories before we even get to our main point that we are used to being defensive. But we (on this forum) have a lot more agreement on cosmology with each other than we do with 99% of the rest of the world (we’re all flat earthers!). We got enough enemies! (My own family will barely discuss ideas with me anymore). So, let’s remember that and take the opportunity to get some ideas from the few people who kinda know where we’re coming from. And save the attacks for stupid Redditers lol (that place is so lost now...). You know the real freakin problem is we are not all three in a bar sharing a drink and talking in person! Fuck this worldly locked down system where I don’t have a dozen in-person flat earth friends to play games with and talk philosophy with. If either of you two make it to Thailand hit me up!

So, I’ll share my theory (and I’m sure there’s others who also have thought this):


So, more recently I’ve been thinking God may be the collective conciousness and structure of the world. Or atleast the ‘next level up’ of God may be this. And we are just the pieces that make up of him. There’s plenty of spiritual books writing about this idea, but I was thinking it may be also a ‘physical’ truth to it; An analogy may be of humans as being like the proteins and little organelles, and the whole world is like the cell that encapsulates us (physically, or otherwise) that is moving along this larger being. Maybe through its bloodstream, or in its eye. Or brain. Or maybe it’s body is not something we can comprehend for making sense but it does on its scale. In this way we are ‘part of God’ (being the larger creature) and we are also individuals (as individual organelles). When we “die” we will then become “one with God” being the larger ‘being’ that our world is comprised of. The various bits that make us up are then probably reconstituted to form more organelles again and we are reborn. Of course, even this is somewhat of an illusion because while we are “us” as individuals, we are also “each other” and even the “larger god-host creature as a whole”... it’s just we don’t realize this. Perhaps a way to visualize this; if you fell and bumped your head and forgot your entire childhood, this would not mean you did not have a childhood, it simply means you are not aware of it. It’s like that except that ‘memory’ is happening right now. As me. And you. And everyone. All unaware that we are each other.


To me this just make the most sense because we literally see this happen in smaller scales in our own world; animals are made of tinier pieces (cells), and these cells are made of still tinier pieces (proteins, molecules), and then these are made of even tinier pieces! (Atoms, subatomic particles). At every level that level is nearly totally unaware of the larger scale level that they are part of. Yet this seems to have no affect on each individual “cell” to do its job. It’s as if they are joined by a field of collective consciousness, that helps guide them to a greater purpose. This could be seen as our spiritual connection to “God” for us.


It’s hard to prove this but if you just follow the pattern of how life (and the world) organizes, it seems to do so on these scales of size, each being made of tiny parts for the one above it. If we simply keep following this logic it only seems natural that we humans are tiny parts of a greater system. The materiastic lie is in thinking this greater system is separate from us. Or that this makes us “unimportant”. A closer truth may be that there is no actual separation, we are all one sort of. Yet also separate. Life is a paradox.


Another mistake of mainstream science is in thinking this means it is all materialistic, however I see each layer as being equally spiritual in nature. Not just “mechanistic”. It could be that there is life at each scale. Each different and affecting the higher and lower life in some spiritual and physical way. In fact, I think the corrupters have us viewing life as spiritual vs material, when in reality you must combine these views to see the truth, life simply “is”.


The biggest evidence against this was the vast emptiness of space. But now that we know that’s probably a lie and that there is likely a realm just above the sky, it seems plausible this theory of being part of a greater system could be true.


But I’m not married to this idea. It could be more similar scales. Or could be something else entirely. It’s just where I’m currently sitting as most likely.

Anyways, if you have some thoughts on this theory let me know!

(Btw I write more extensively on this idea in a previous post about electronics and microchips where I discuss how maybe ‘time’ works differently at different scales as well, but I’ll spare you that tldr part of it!)

Oliver_Bestfall
You are not the arbiter of what constitutes a valid argument or "methodology."
So, what's the method I should have used?
I showed how 100% randomness and 100% consistency are the definition of opposites. There is no argument here: these are the actual definitions and they are opposites.
Then, I showed how we observe 100% consistency everywhere we look.
Therefore, we are not in a 100% random environment.
This is the transitive property; proof by disproving the opposite; and I used examples to illustrate this.
What, *exactly* is wrong with that? How is "without methodology"?

It's a logical proof. Just because you disagree with it, that doesn't make you correct. You have given nothing to refute my assessment except "you're wrong; you have no methodology; blah, blah, blah."
That's not a argument, professor. *Show* how I'm wrong.

On electrons:
Here, argue that with Nikola Tesla, professor:
https://drnikolatesla.tumblr.com/post/148028036083/electron
What you know and believe is not all there is to either know or believe.

Just because chemicals are not made up of electrons, doesn't mean they're not made up of anything, or that we cannot predict their behaviour. I mean, at this point, I starting to think you're trolling me.

"A peculiar use of percentages."
Really? You're trolling me, right?
So, if I said "water is 100% wet," would you have an issue with that? Somehow, I think you would. "Well, what's *inside* the water; if metal is in there, then at least *some* of the "water" is dry." No, that just means the 100% wet water has a bit of metal in it.

Have you *ever* written a mathematical proof in your life? I mean, even high school kids do it.
All you've said is "you're wrong" but you're not offering either logic or math to support that claim. How is my "methodology" incorrect?

By the way, "methodology" is the "study of methods" in the same way that "geo-logy" is the study of rocks and "mythology" is the study of myths. I'm neither studying nor attempting to give any sort of lecture on "methods" of any kind.
The word you're looking for is simply "method."
For someone all bent out of shape by word use, this is a rather colossal oversight.

You're like a broken record. *You* attacked first. Prove me wrong, right? We can both easily make this claim. You didn't address my argument, you attacked the corruption of words and my argument has nothing to do with the corruption of words - which you failed to address, I noticed. Tripped you up on that one, did I?

I feel like we're not even having the same conversation. You haven't addressed my argument, you criticized my word use and claimed my method was somehow absent - even though I clearly presented my points though everyday, widely accepted forms of logical proofs already explained.

You didn't even address the other basic questions I asked:
- Where does this "corruption of words" end? Is the word "corrupt" also corrupt?
- If an intelligent being didn't create the rock, and randomness didn't create the rock, then what other option is there?
- Atheism claims "zero God" - by *definition* as I've already shown by the roots of the words. Zero God means "zero intent" because there's nothing there to direct anything. Therefore, atheism is - by definition - an argument of 100% randomness and 0% intent.
What third option exists in your view?

Those are pretty simple.

Why are you even going on about this? You're not even answering anything I ask so what are you even doing here?
I think it's to flaunt your inflated sense of intellectual superiority.
Then answer those basic questions.

If you think 100%/0% randomness v 0%/100% God is flawed, then explain why and then enlighten us with the third option.

I really think you're just trolling because you're bored, or whatever.

@Tree
Totally agree: these lockdowns are intentionally used to disrupt normal people from interacting. They're afraid that too many of us have learned the truth and they're terrified of losing control.
If flights ever open up again, I'll definitely hit you up when I restart my tour of the earth.

On collective consciousness:
I've always thought they meant that on an energetic/spiritual level, but I see what you mean. Well, at the most fundamental level, everything is simply energy interacting in incomprehensible manners to produce what we call reality. Dreams feel like realty, too, while you're having them and we, as creators, can create magnificent environments for play, to resolve emotional issue, etc. Dreams are expression of our personal creative ability. We're such masters that we can literally do it in our sleep. Ha.

I agree: we are all one with everything, yet separate enough to have "individual" experiences.
I mean, we *can't* know, right? I feel like there's a Bible verse about "man being incapable of knowing our realm." I haven't read the Bible and I didn't grow up visiting church so I don't have verses to hand - or even read them even once. Just a few bits here and there.
Plus, how much of the Bible is true? They've lied about everything else.

There's a lot of evidence that we are connected: ESP; empaths; etc. Also, the strange phenomenon of distant civilizations creating the same invention at the same time. Or how they said "no one can beat the 1 minute mile" .. and the one guy did. After that, it was like the flood gates opened up on potential: people started cracking it all over the world - many whom have never heard of the "1st Guy" having done it. It's like information is shared on a kind of cosmic intelligence and information flows both ways. We've simply had this connection severed (or at least severely hampered) by the controllers.

Hey, I was a radar tech for the Navy, I'll talk electronics all day! Post the link; I'm interested in taking a look.

Cheers, brother.

Yeah, I really hate these lockdowns. Cool, yeah hopefully soon humanity gets over its mass hysteria and we can travel again! For sure, I really think part of the solutions is flat earthers meeting up in person more. Basically sharing our collective consciousness energy. Socializing, and sharing ideas. They know that is powerful so they’re desperately trying to suppress us.

Yeah, true, dreams are a good example of us using our amazing creative powers. Perhaps they are a sort of safe place for us to practice our creative powers? Maybe a glimpse of the “next reality!” Where dreams are real! Who knows.

That’s interesting about the 1 minute mile. And the tool discoveries. Yes, I believe there’s quite possibly something to esp. there are several studies. And it’s very suppressed. So, it’s possible.

That verse would make sense! We certainly don’t seem close to knowing yet. Perhaps if we can voyage to the Antarctic we will be closer to the truth. I wish I was a millionaire, I’d go!

Ok haha, would love to hear some feedback! Especially from someone in the general field. I’m not an expert of course but this has been a curiosity of mine for a while, so I’ve done some research. I’m just proposing some ideas on what to me seems rather mysterious.

The forum post is called “Electronics are Magic”. Under the tab “Other Conspiracies”. Here’s a link:

https://ifers.123.st/t336-electronics-are-magic

-The main post is on questioning the mainstream explanation for microchips, and offering an alternative possibility.
-Near the bottom of the first page I write about “atomic model skepticism” where I question the mainstream explanation of the atom and electrons.
-The last post on the next page is a little more off topic, discussing some alternative ideas on time and dimensions.

Thanks for taking a read!

Brian,

You are correct. My usage of the word, "methodology" was incorrect.

Respectfully.

"Hey, I was a radar tech for the Navy, I'll talk electronics all day! Post the link; I'm interested in taking a look."

Whooa...... red flag anyone?

Not wishing to upset a voluminous thread but I can't see, with the perfect, sublime, interconnected complexity of everything how there couldn't be a God (intelligent designer for the embarrassed).

@Tree
Well, I'm not an expert, either. I believed the same lies they told us about the working of that radar - like making us enter the temperature of the water to account for "atmospheric extension" of the radar beam which was to explain why my radar could see so far at sea level. Like pilots who simply follow their flight plans without really thinking it through. Like, why didn't I have to constantly update the water temperature? One measurement every shift (8 to 12 hours)? Really? Uggh. If I had known then, I would have entered various numbers to see if anything changed. Ah, well, missed opportunity.

For reference, I worked on the AN/SPY-1B/DV radar as a component of the AEGIS weapon system. It's a phased array radar system using 4 fixed panels, cardinally located to cover 360 degrees nearly simultaneously - as opposed to a spinning radar dish limited to updating once per rotation. It was super fun to work on.
I was stationed on the USS McCampbell (DDG-85). I was a plankowner so I worked on this radar fresh out of the box and I worked closely with the engineers who designed it. Even that wasn't enough to see the inconsistencies. We're just too busy to see everything.

I still have my plankowner piece of the ship -- well, it's a wooden block so I imagine it's just a symbol, but, whatever.
Also, since I was the youngest member of the crew (at the time), I was the one to flip the "on" switch of the first system installed on the ship. We were in Bath, ME, so I presume the local papers have some record of it.
Just in case anyone wanted to verify my claims. Oh, it was around 9/11, since I was stationed there when that happened.
I don't track time very well. I typically need another marker around an event to find the year it happened. I'm not sure why I'm like that.

As for electrons:
https://drnikolatesla.tumblr.com/post/148028036083/electron

Tesla refuted the mainstream story of electrons. That's just an article about it, but his research shows that his experiments worked because he refused to believe the electron lie.

I'll read your other post later. Thanks.

Cheers.

@Oliver_Bestfall

That's it? While I appreciate the accepted correction, I'm still interested in the third option:
1) Someone made it happen
2) Nothing made it happen
3) ?

@nowhereelsetogo

What are you implying with your "red flag" comment? That I'm an insider?

Why would I aim to prove the existence of God if I was an insider/demon? That's what they are; demons who reject the light of God and seek to engage in all activities He hold abhorrent: consuming blood, rape, murder and including children because they're the most precious and innocent in God's eyes. They engage in the most heinous acts imaginable and more to gain favour from the devil, himself.

I realize that you don't know me so it's reasonable to have suspicions. I'm hopeful this will illustrate that I have not sold my soul to satan and I remain a child of God spreading the truth of our environment: the dome, the fixed stars, the local sun and moon, the naval of the earth, the lodestone, and so on.

Having said that: always remain vigilant for people who suddenly change their stripes, such as Joe Rogan flipping from FE to Glober. Always seek truth.

Cheers,
Brian

KyriosMora wrote:@nowhereelsetogo

What are you implying with your "red flag" comment? That I'm an insider?

Why would I aim to prove the existence of God if I was an insider/demon? That's what they are; demons who reject the light of God and seek to engage in all activities He hold abhorrent: consuming blood, rape, murder and including children because they're the most precious and innocent in God's eyes. They engage in the most heinous acts imaginable and more to gain favour from the devil, himself.

I realize that you don't know me so it's reasonable to have suspicions. I'm hopeful this will illustrate that I have not sold my soul to satan and I remain a child of God spreading the truth of our environment: the dome, the fixed stars, the local sun and moon, the naval of the earth, the lodestone, and so on.

Having said that: always remain vigilant for people who suddenly change their stripes, such as Joe Rogan flipping from FE to Glober. Always seek truth.

Cheers,
Brian

Yurp.
Local sun and moon OK but dome not proven.
What navel?
Lodestone or magnetite? What's that all about?
Don't know who that Joe person is.

@nowhereelsetogo

Even MIT has detected the dome:
https://news.mit.edu/2014/plasma-shield-against-harmful-radiation-1126

Here's the sun creating the same reflections as seen through curved glass:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WUlJZHBnOtSLBXUog24Co8O8x0MtQdoN/view?usp=sharing

I mean, this information is available on this site. Just look around.

Joe Rogan, from Fear Factor to Pod Cast Guy. He used to entertain non mainstream theories but then suddenly shifted when the rubber hit the road, if you will.

It's a rather absurd leap to say that everyone in the military is an inside man. Having said that, you *should* scrutinize everyone. Otherwise, deceivers will lead you astray.

Don't believe anything I say, great; investigate everything I say. You should.

Cheers.

nowhereelsetogo wrote:"Hey, I was a radar tech for the Navy, I'll talk electronics all day! Post the link; I'm interested in taking a look."

Whooa...... red flag anyone?

@nowhereelsetogo

Only of slight interest, I'm sure Bob from Globebusters is also an ex-Navy radar tech. Coincidence?