Science needs even toilet paper, much more God

[questfortruth]

Different proofs for God are being discovered every year, but the proofs for the absence of God (proofs for atheism then) are lacking. My thesis, which I am substantiating here:

The genius mathematician, who has proven in recent years the Millennium Prize Problem (the Russian national hero - Grisha Perelman), needs God as badly as all scientists do. Namely, any scientist needs words of support from own family or from other authority figures: "Well done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things." Matthew 25:21 NKJV.

In a complex or a tricky proof that no one can logically refute so far, the author's intuitive feeling of truth plays a decisive role. But he understands that sooner or later, his proof may turn out to be wrong and refuted (if not by other scientists, then by the author himself). This is the scientific spirit of the Popper’s falsifiability criterion, which is rephrased as: "a theory (even in mathematics) is then scientific when it is vulnerable."

And since any scientific theory or theorem is vulnerable, then it is essentially a hypothesis. But a theorem is never called the hypothesis, a contradiction is obtained then. For example, I found a rebuttal to the articles of Grisha Perelman (about his proof of Poincare Conjecture), but the magazines/journals did not accept my rebuttal against Grisha even without explaining the reasons for the refusal; I think, they sinned against the truth-seeking process (to look for valid things and theories must be their job and calling) simply out of oppressive domination and/or bad feeling:

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing... Genesis 3:4-5 NIV.

Well, I proved Goldbach's Conjecture yesterday. Hereby I have logically substantiated everything. But, I feel that if the highest journal in Heaven disagrees with me (or has a bad feeling about it), then Goldbach's Conjecture is not true; or it is true, but I proved it stupidly/unsatisfactorily (look up the song "I can get no satisfaction"); although according to the Presumption of Innocence: "any mistake, brought to public space, must be proven mistake" I must be treated in public and in your comments below as one, who has proven the Goldbach's Conjecture. Because I am not stupid and not a liar; because you do not know me at all, then the default position in my Church is: I am genius, truthful, and holy. I have two Church diplomas: "for hard work for benefit of the Church". I have called myself genius now, and it is not sin in this context because is written: "Do not hold the word when it can help" (Sirah 4:27, Synodal Bible)

The highest authority in the field (e.g., journal Science at Earth, or the God in Heaven) must like my paper, for it is not enough, that the paper is logically written. In the afterlife, in the perfect world, above any top journal must be [acknowledged and prayed by the journal] the highest head of the journal - the living God: "How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God" John 5:44 NIV.

DISCUSSION

Atheist: what is a perfect world you have mentioned? Isn't we live in such a world? "I feel good because I am happy, I feel wonderful and free" (pop song).

Me in reply: the world is fallen according to my Church. Knowledge of a human is defined as knowledge, which belongs to his God, and which is stored and being kept in the human's Church. Therefore, for any theist his God is Scientifically Proven, for Science is not a method, but the Quest For Absolute Truth.

What does it mean that we live in a fallen world? | GotQuestions.org

Atheist: "You have the union God + Science, these are incompatible concepts."

Me in reply:

"Science needs even toilet paper; so, Science can need the Highest Being."

Albert Einstein would say: "outside of that, there's already Scientific Pantheism."

Me in reply:
There is nothing new. My Religion is richer than any of the others. As an example, in my Religion the God is Spirit. God is the Spirit of Creation, the Spirit of Love, the Spirit of Police, the Spirit of Personality (Thus, God is the person), the Spirit of all that good and holy.

 

[February-Saturday]

Psychology has shown that specific kinds of spirituality are beneficial to one's mental health, but it has also shown that other kinds (like the hellfire and anti-LGBT sermons common in Christianity) are actually very unhealthy. For a lot of atheists, it's actually healthier to have no religion due to their bad experiences with it.

Outside of that, there's already Scientific Pantheism, which even renowned atheists like Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson have had lengthy conversations about its benefits. That's the God that figures like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, arguably two of the most famous scientists, frequently spoke about.

So science already has the God that it needs, that just doesn't happen to be your God.

 

[questfortruth]

Outside of that, there's already Scientific Pantheism

There is nothing new. My Religion is richer than any of the others. As an example, in my Religion the God is Spirit. God is the Spirit of Creation, the Spirit of Love, the Spirit of Police, the Spirit of Personality (Thus, God is the person), the Spirit of all that good and holy.

 

[Samael_Khan]

There is nothing new. My Religion is richer than any of the others. As an example, in my Religion the God is Spirit. God is the Spirit of Creation, the Spirit of Love, the Spirit of Police, the Spirit of Personality (Thus, God is the person), the Spirit of all that good and holy.

Ancient Egyptian religion is richer than yours.

 

[Native]

Different proofs for God are being discovered every year, but the proofs for the absence of God (proofs for atheism then) are lacking. My thesis, which I am substantiating here:

The genius mathematician, who has proven in recent years the Millennium Prize Problem (the Russian national hero - Grisha Perelman), needs God as badly as all scientists do. Namely, any scientist needs words of support from own family or from other authority figures: "Well done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things." Matthew 25:21 NKJV.

Religions have their personal God - and in the best of religiuos cases, also a Goddess.

Science too have "lots of gods", i.e. all their constants and assumptions, not to forget their miraculous birth of the Universe. Or the tremendeous illusion that "gravity governs everything".

The balanced perception in both areas is to take the electromagnetic LIGHT as the prime cause of creation and all universal motions.

In this sence we both can confirm a kind of God/Goddess and at the same time dismiss such personal deities.

PS: This don´t take away the genuine feeling of a divine Creation everywhere.

 

[Native]

Ancient Egyptian religion is richer than yours.

I indeed agree in that

 

[Polymath257]

Give a few lines of your supposed proof. I'll point out the *first* logical mistake.

 

[`mud]

When one discovers the `beginning`,
then and only then,
will `it` be yours.

 

[`mud]

How does one find proof for a non-determinate lack of `beliefs`.
wut ?

 

[Valjean]

Different proofs for God are being discovered every year, but the proofs for the absence of God (proofs for atheism then) are lacking. My thesis, which I am substantiating here:

There are no "proofs" of God. There is pareidolia, there's apophenia, there's personal incredulity born of ignorance, but proof -- show me.
If there were proof there would be general agreement, like there is for plate techtonics, relativity, or the Pythagorean theorem.

Psychology has shown that specific kinds of spirituality are beneficial to one's mental health, but it has also shown that other kinds (like the hellfire and anti-LGBT sermons common in Christianity) are actually very unhealthy. For a lot of atheists, it's actually healthier to have no religion due to their bad experiences with it.

Outside of that, there's already Scientific Pantheism, which even renowned atheists like Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson have had lengthy conversations about its benefits. That's the God that figures like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, arguably two of the most famous scientists, frequently spoke about.

So science already has the God that it needs, that just doesn't happen to be your God.

What does personal benefit have to do with religion? Is religion a therapeutic modality, or a claim of objective truth?

 

[`mud]

Arguing with idols and gods,
and a word from the angels.

 

[Valjean]

There is nothing new. My Religion is richer than any of the others. As an example, in my Religion the God is Spirit. God is the Spirit of Creation, the Spirit of Love, the Spirit of Police, the Spirit of Personality (Thus, God is the person), the Spirit of all that good and holy.

And your point?
Don't practitioners of many religions claim theirs is "richer" than others, (whatever that means)?

Religions have their personal God - and in the best of religiuos cases, also a Goddess.

Science too have "lots of gods", i.e. all their constants and assumptions, not to forget their miraculous birth of the Universe. Or the tremendeous illusion that "gravity governs everything".

What gods does science have? Constants and laws aren't revered, and they're always subject to disproof or revision.
Science doesn't claim the birth of the universe -- or anything else -- is miraculous. There are no miracles in science, only phenomena not yet understood. Miracles are outside the purview of science.

The balanced perception in both areas is to take the electromagnetic LIGHT as the prime cause of creation and all universal motions.

How is something that didn't exist at the creation a cause of the creation?

In this sence we both can confirm a kind of God/Goddess and at the same time dismiss such personal deities.

PS: This don´t take away the genuine feeling of a divine Creation everywhere.

I don't follow. Whence this confirmation?

 

[ecco]

My Religion is richer than any of the others.

There are thousands of different religious sects. Everyone thinks their religion and their god is the best. Your claims are far from unique.

Lyrics
My dog's bigger than your dog,
My dog's bigger than yours,
My dog's bigger
And he chases mailmen,
My dog's bigger than yours.
My dog's better than your dog,
My dog's better than yours,
His name is King,
And he had puppies,
My dog's better than yours.

​

 

[ecco]

The balanced perception in both areas is to take the electromagnetic LIGHT as the prime cause of creation and all universal motions.

When you say "the balanced perception" you mean your highly debunked perception.

 

[questfortruth]

If there were proof there would be general agreement, like there is for plate techtonics, relativity, or the Pythagorean theorem.

No, because there are two Gods with their followers and fans: "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of" Luke 9:55. One god is evil, is a liar, and hates to be proven to even own followers. That is why we say "proof for God" and never "proof for satan". "Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed." John 3:20 NIV

 

[questfortruth]

Give a few lines of your supposed proof. I'll point out the *first* logical mistake.

You have a negative default position about my IQ level. One can never change the negative position to positive because from nothing the nothing comes. "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas." Matthew 16:4

 

[The Hammer]

You have a negative default position about my IQ level. One can never change the negative position to positive because from nothing the nothing comes. "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas." Matthew 16:4

What the fire and brimstone does this even mean?

 

[questfortruth]

What the fire and brimstone does this even mean?

 

[The Hammer]

Doesn't work in my country due to copyright infringement. Also,don't post videos without commentary or context, thanks.

 

[Polymath257]

You have a negative default position about my IQ level. One can never change the negative position to positive because from nothing the nothing comes. "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas." Matthew 16:4

No, I have a negative *learned* opinion of your ability to do math and physics. You had the benefit of the doubt the first time I read a paper of yours. But it was clear within the first couple of paragraphs that you didn't understand what was even involved in proving something mathematically. And every paper since then has only confirmed that initial reaction.

So, as a kindness, if you present the *first* part of your paper, I will let you know the first basic mistake you make. I may even let you know the first two or three. Based on experience (not default), I have no doubt that there will be such.