Irrefutable proof of the existence of God

[itt23r]

Nothing here of intelligence here worth commenting on since JD.

 

[Abba]

Colossians 1:23 is “was preached in all the creation that is under heaven” How can you conclude that it was one or any of the NT Gospels since none have accomplished this feat even to this day?

Well, some disagree with you who have done their own little math:

You probably heard the idea that there are six-degrees of separation between every person in the world. It comes from the fact that each person has a number of people they know. Those people in turn know a number of people. As a result you can give a person a letter to be delivered to any person in the world, they can pass that letter on through friends, and it will arrive at the determined person passing through, on average, only six hands.

Let’s say the average person knows a hundred people well. Then if you include the person and all his friends, they know 10,000 people. If you include the original person, his friends, and their friends, then they know a million people. If you include all million people, they would know a hundred million people. Add in the fifth set of people and you now cover 10 billion people – more than the world’s current population. Of course, there is going to be overlap of common friends, but I think you see that it doesn’t take long to find connections between people. (That is why pyramid sales schemes are illegal, there aren’t enough people in the world to allow to sustain recruitment very long.) The world’s population was a lot less in the days of the early church. So yes, it is possible for every person in the world to have heard of gospel message. It doesn’t mean they all responded to the message, but it also doesn’t mean it was unknown.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2009/03-26d.html

This gospel would certainly not countradict the other four but it has been given us all the same.

Paul was responding to the Colossians who were practicing a type of cosmic syncretism of which we do not have exact knowledge except for somethings of it. Maybe the Colossians were practicing a type of New Age. I was reading in the Vatican website that New Age is not new but was just supplanted for centuries.

It maybe all very ironic that you are using 1:23 as a back up since what you may be proposing may very well be what Paul was refuting.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Nothing here of intelligence here worth commenting on since JD.

Including your own posts apparently…

You come on here to a Catholic forum (which you nominally claim). You promote your oh-so-groundbreaking work about the mathematics of the Logos throughout the universe. You expect that people should be welcoming it with open arms (if not you).

Yet you act as if you are the creme de la creme in this thread, which judging by your posts, you certainly should NOT be saying that there is nothing intelligence to comment on. Judging by your standards, nobody should have even BEGUN responding to your posts on some kind of new (but nothing really new) revelation about the Word of God.

I’m not saying your not intelligent. What I’m saying is you have no business calling your fellow Catholics AND their quotes unintelligent.

When you say “nothing of intelligence”, you include not only the posts, but the posters. And by saying that, you have commented on those posts you weren’t supposed to comment on.

Give us something we can work with. Don’t give us utter hubris.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

For one I’m not sure I am allowed to give the name of the book or the website. But I will. The book’s name is The Gospel of Creation and the website goes by the same name www.thegospelofcreation.com

I went there. Nothing special there. 5 priests? That’s it? What about secularists? Mathematicians? Physicists? Scientists? Cosmologists? Historians? Symbologists? Semioticians?

I’m sure those priests are great, but what about specialists?

The site needs more reviews from people who know about the technical aspects. You say the mathematics is elegant. It may be. It may not be. We need more credible reviews.

For another I’m really not here to plug the book as much as I am to see the various reactions to it. After researching the book for 19 years without finding any flaws in the argument I am personally convinced the discovery truly is from God. The math is just too elegant and the message too profound for it not to be. And given that we are seemingly living in the fullness of time in an upside down world crying for direction I would think that Catholics especially would be ecstatic about a message from God that corroborates everything the Catholic Church has ever taught. I mean, think of the consequences to the world of such a revelation.

I agree with the motive. I’m glad that doubt compelled you to arrive at that conclusion. But the fact that YOU don’t see errors, doesn’t mean others won’t.

You say its not a revelation, then you say that the world needs this revelation. Which is it, hombre?

But for the most part all I have gotten is derision from those who haven’t read it. Those that have read it are full of awe and praise (just as I was after I realized what I’d found). But it’s the people who haven’t read it (Catholics and atheists alike) who are the puzzle.

The author included.

How do you get through to them?

Certainly not the way you’ve been attempting.

I’m sure you put a lot of time in the book. Put more time into the reviews and the credibility of your thesis. You just need more credibility. That’s what YOU lack. Not just your book.

 

[Abba]

Nothing here of intelligence here worth commenting on since JD.

Did I just get honorary membership of the Bobble Head Club?

 

[itt23r]

Well I came onto this forum telling of a new mathematical discovery that corroborates all Catholic Church teaching and I understandably got a lot of skepticism for it. That was to be expected. And I’ve tried my best to field your criticisms. But I’ve also received some extremely irrational hatred from some you call my fellow Catholics. Sorry but no I don’t believe irrational criticisms deserve a response. In fact whenever I have encountered in the past such irrational hatred for things dealing with magisterial truths it is usually coming from a non-Catholic or a prochoice Catholic source (if such a thing is possible). And I suspect the same to be the case here. In fact it is a good sign. To have incited so much vitriol from some of you is an indication that I’ve riled up the source of all vitriol. And that can only mean that I must be doing something right.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

to empther

Good Lord, you have an awful large amount of vitriol directed against something you haven’t even read and know absolutely nothing about.

Is this your way of advertising? To deride those to whom you have written your “Gospel” and give REALLY vague answers to questions or comments about the content of the book.

I agree people shouldn’t judge a book by the cover, but when the author makes it the equivalent of Gospels, OF COURSE, you will get negative responses. Did you expect anything else?

And since it appears that being ignorant makes you angry there is of course a remedy.

Since it appears you love derision and basque in its glory, I will assume you don’t intend to get positive feedback at all.

Along with the 700 page tome you deride there is also a small (48 page) summary on the same website selling for $3.00 + S&H. I make very little money on both books incidently. And that summary is a very good introduction of the subject.

Allegedly.

But of course you won’t take this advice because I suspect you like being angry. Cursing the darkness (even though you can easily light a candle and be enlightened) apparently makes you happy.

You can also give him the candle instead of keeping the matches away. You put yourself on the same level as the Gospel writers, yet you are far from acting like them.

It also ppears that more information is needed to make it all a little less mysterious as one of you pointed out. So I thank you all for your help and I intend to continue to respond to all of the “intelligent” comments this thread receives.

As I have pointed out already, your posts are a sandwich shy of a picnic also. Don’t belittle others when in their belittlement, they are still bigger than you.

In other words, play nice.

 

[Abba]

Well I came onto this forum telling of a new mathematical discovery that corroborates **all **Catholic Church teaching and I understandably got a lot of skepticism for it.

How about if your theory corroborates 24 but disproves three? Or, how about if the rationality of your theory places into question the Gospel? This is why it may be best to be humble and submit to the Church. Again, a serious concern here is the salvation of souls. These theories can mislead. It is best to go through proper channels and be humble.

But I’ve also received some extremely irrational hatred from some you call my fellow Catholics. Sorry but no I don’t believe irrational criticisms deserve a response.

What is so irrational about reminding you that all glory and honor belongs to God?

Yet, you can offend Holy Mother Church, glorify yourself and have the audacity to proclaim your theory the Fifth Gospel etc… in a Catholic Forum mind you and you expect people to go along with you.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Well I came onto this forum telling of a new mathematical discovery that corroborates all Catholic Church teaching and I understandably got a lot of skepticism for it. That was to be expected.

I am following you so far.

And I’ve tried my best to field your criticisms. But I’ve also received some extremely irrational hatred from some you call my fellow Catholics. Sorry but no I don’t believe irrational criticisms deserve a response.

That’s not irrational. I’m criticizing YOUR criticism of their intelligence.

In any case, your comment was nullified by the fact that it did deserve a response.

Ad they are not giving you hatred. The fact that they disagree with the premise of the book doesn’t make it hatred.

In fact whenever I have encountered in the past such irrational hatred for things dealing with magisterial truths it is usually coming from a non-Catholic or a prochoice Catholic source (if such a thing is possible). And I suspect the same to be the case here. In fact it is a good sign. To have incited so much vitriol from some of you is an indication that I’ve riled up the source of all vitriol. And that can only mean that I must be doing something right.

Or it can mean you are doing something WRONG.

So what if people aren’t going to read the book or the introduction. Some people don’t care about mathematics as much as you and I do, much mathematical proofs about the existence of God. They don’t have degrees in that kind of stuff like you and I.

I would gladly read it.

So, before you attack the “attacker”, make sure he’s attacking. I guarantee you I’m not the one attacking, nor am I being irrational. I know irrational, and that’s not irrational. So, I make funny little jabs. I mean nothing by it. But, you are serious in your derision and THAT’S what frustrates me.

Go read all your posts and then tell me that you are doing absolutely nothing wrong in offensiveness to anybody.

 

[itt23r]

To GreggAlvarez

Thank you thank you thank you. Everything you said was great. But obviously what you are seeing here is just the beginning. The more that actually read the book the more positive reviews we will be able to post. And you are right, the scientific community has been overlooked. but hopefully that will begin to change as well.

Not that we’ve tried very hard so far but the main problem with getting scientific testimony is trying to find a scientist who also has Faith, because the book cannot be fully appreciated without it. And even then it has to be a scientist who is willing to stick their neck out and endorse a carreer jeopardizing hypothesis. The only ones I’ve run across thus far with that much courage are Young Earthers and they understandably don’t have any appreciation at all for the book.

It is a certainty that the scientific community will come around. But the first order of business is to win over the shepherds (that is, the Church). A couple of years down the road, the magi will follow.

 

[itt23r]

To Gregg Alvarez

Would love to get a response and some feedback from a fellow lover of mathematician. Is there a way i can send you a free copy of the introduction?

 

[itt23r]

would love to get some feedback from a fellow lover of math. Is there a way of sending you a free copy of the introduction? That’s all you’ll need to understand what it’s about…

 

[GreggAlvarez]

to empther;

My you certainly are obsessed in trying to destroy things you have no understanding of. I’m curious which Priest you contacted, the Chaplain, the Pastor, the Censor or the one presently assigned to the Vatican, not that any would refute their testimony.

And on a side note you seem to be hell bent in tearing down a book that purports to contain irrefuable proof that everything the Catholic Magesterium professes is true. Can it be inferred from your overreaction then that since you claim to be Catholic that you are one of those cafeteria Catholics (perhaps a pro-choice or Obama Catholic)? I mean your hatred for a book you haven’t even read and know nothing about is a little over the top don’t you think?

Did empther EVER say he hated the book? No. Is he against something purporting itself to be on par with Holy Scripture?

Who has the hatred here? Who is the irrational one? Yeah, you are. You can reverse the tables and say “did I EVER say I hated anythig?”. To which, I don’t care if you did or not. You hate the fact that Catholics don’t like the idea. You keep saying “hatred” and “vitriol” as if you saying it over and over will make it true. Its not.

How about this? Let’s discuss what you can about the book. I understand you did a lot of research, so it would be unfair for you to not get at least something back. But I wonder how much the Gospel writers made for their writings…

But you must understand that disagreement does NOT equate to hatred. You must understand that constructive criticism (especially from me) is NOT irrational. And you must understand that derision gets you absolutely nowhere in the promotion of your “Gospel”.

If the book is really what you say it is, why not GIVE it to the public? Perhaps that would make it a little nore credible and people would think, “hey, what do I have to lose besides time?”

 

[itt23r]

problem is when you don’t put a price on something people put no value to it even if it is priceless. Giving the book does not ensure that it gets read. I know this from experience.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

To GreggAlvarez

Thank you thank you thank you. Everything you said was great. But obviously what you are seeing here is just the beginning. The more that actually read the book the more positive reviews we will be able to post.

You do realize there will be negative reviews also, right? Be fair to those reviews and reviewers also.

And look, I am merely defendig my Catholic brothers and sisters from you.

And you are right, the scientific community has been overlooked. but hopefully that will begin to change as well.

Hopefully, because to skeptics, the priestly reviews will do more harm to your cause than no reviews.

And you need skeptic reviewers. There will be no way around that fact. I have Christian apologetic books against atheism that were reviewed by atheists. Peculiarly, I don’t have an atheist book that has Christian reviews. There may be some; I just don’t have any.

Not that we’ve tried very hard so far but the main problem with getting scientific testimony is trying to find a scientist who also has Faith, because the book cannot be fully appreciated without it.

Here is a major faux pas:

You claim that your journey to the conclusion was without faith, yet you claim it cannot be fully appreciated by a person without faith. But YOU claim you did.

If it purports to be evidence of God, then that’s what it has to be. The faithless (Atheists) need evidence. If they don’t have faith and that’s what they need to appreciate the beauty of the content, then all you’re doing is scratching your foot through your shoe. (And I’ve tried that. It does work.)

And even then it has to be a scientist who is willing to stick their neck out and endorse a carreer jeopardizing hypothesis.

How will it end a scientistic career?

The only ones I’ve run across thus far with that much courage are Young Earthers and they understandably don’t have any appreciation at all for the book.

Well, put their reviews up. That is, put the reasonable reviews up. I’m sure there will be nasty reviews. That is the nature of literary criticism.

It is a certainty that the scientific community will come around. But the first order of business is to win over the shepherds (that is, the Church). A couple of years down the road, the magi will follow.

Only time will tell if this is true. Maybe this theory of yours calculates the book’s success or unsuccess?

 

[itt23r]

How about a review from you? still waiting on your response to the free copy offer.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

would love to get some feedback from a fellow lover of math. Is there a way of sending you a free copy of the introduction? That’s all you’ll need to understand what it’s about…

Whoah whoah! Slow down buddy. I would gladly read it, but on my own time. I do work and have other various things going on.

And I still don’t trust you. It seems that you have calmed down a little, which is a good sign. But I still need something that will convince me to read it before other things on my large list of books to read. I could care less that it’s free. I care about other things of substance.

I’ve read a lot of Christian apologetics books, and some of them just stink. If I didn’t know any better, I wouldve stopped believing in God just reading them. (Same parallel scenario with some atheist books.)

Anyway, let me go to the website and let’s have a rational discussion on some of this stuff, so you can gain my trust and if it is worth putting ahead of other books.

 

[itt23r]

will be looking for you.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Before I start, I am not qualified to write a professional review. Nobody cares that Gregg Alvarez reviewed the book. I would make the decision to NOT buy it if I ever saw that name in a positive review.

My critiques will be pretty sporadic because I don’t have a computer. So, I apologize for the disorganization.

Along the way it also provides us (believe it or not) the exact dates of Jesus’ conception…

If this ratio embedded in reality and can correctly place a date on the conception of Christ, it CAN mean that Mary was destined to say “Yes” to the conception of the Logos, which means she did not make that choice according to her free will. Since you some much of your position on extrem probability, then this COULD be the case and as you may already know, this would go against Church teaching on free will. In other words, it begs the question of determinism.

So, there is something unclear about this claim, which you should clear up based on your findings.

I could prove at this time the existence of God to such a degree that there was only 1 chance in 10 to the 23rd that I was wrong.

This is nothing new. People have been making statistical claims about the probability of God’s existence, yet there are still many Atheists brooding around. (No offense to Atheists readin this.)

There is still a possibility that you are wrong. So, what then?

And the answers it provides for most of these questions are definitive, leaving little room for further debate

But there is still room for debate. It is good that you have not shut that door.

And many will debate you on this.

This 4-D representation of Figure 7.12 promised in The Gospel of Creation is still under construction and is scheduled to be finished in March 2012. Please check back then

I’m perplexed on you are going to make a 4-D representation of something from the book, or anything for that matter. Perhaps, using time as a dimension? How does one draw that?

In fact, they also envisioned it as a mathematical ratio. And we can see this more readily by recognizing that from this same source we also get our word logical.

So, I read the “What is the 2/3rds rule?”. The question was never answered. You only answered what it would do and the implications therein. What is this ratio and how does it work? Those seem worthy for basic introductory material. Don’t you think?

it provides us for the first time a means of statistical analysis for the existence of God. And the probability against this being an accident is astronomical. (I’ve conservatively calculated the odds at around 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power that this could be a coincidence).

This is what I was afraid of? Why be SOOO confident about this, yet leave so much room for probability in a argument that claims to be irrefutable, when CHANCE can refute it and does refute it?

I don’t care that the odds are there. Irrefutability should not be based on chance.

Thoughts?

 

[itt23r]

Before I start, I am not qualified to write a professional review. Nobody cares that Gregg Alvarez reviewed the book. I would make the decision to NOT buy it if I ever saw that name in a positive review.

… I disagree.

If this ratio embedded in reality and can correctly place a date on the conception of Christ, it CAN mean that Mary was destined to say “Yes” to the conception of the Logos, which means she did not make that choice according to her free will. Since you some much of your position on extrem probability, then this COULD be the case and as you may already know, this would go against Church teaching on free will. In other words, it begs the question of determinism.

… Absolutely not. God does seem to work on a time schedule. Scripture is full of references to this fact. (I can cite some of you like). And this does not make creation determininstic in either its hard or soft varieties. What it does do however is corroborate Church teaching on Mary’s sinless nature. Every data point found by the 2/3rds Rule relies on God with but this one exception. Here and only here does God rely on Man if salvation history is going to keep going to completion. So would God rely on a sinful person to keep everything on schedule or on one that is wthout blemish? Mary’s answer was quick and without hesitation despite the danger it put her in. And not only can we see in this just how highly God regarded her but also how much we are indebted to her.

There is still a possibility that you are wrong. So, what then?

Read the book and decide for yourself.

This 4-D representation of Figure 7.12 promised …

… that section of the website is strictly for those who’ve read the book

So, I read the “What is the 2/3rds rule?”. The question was never answered. You only answered what it would do and the implications therein. What is this ratio and how does it work? Those seem worthy for basic introductory material. Don’t you think?

…I agree and will probably amend that essay soon to give more information

I don’t care that the odds are there. Irrefutability should not be based on chance.

…Correct again but I addressed this earlier. Irrefutable proof is ultimately a personal matter and as an atheist it comes to you when you have finally seen so much evidence for the existence of God that you break down and cross over that barrier of probability to the land of knowing without doubt. And as you and I both know it is solely the grace of God that allows it.

By the way, my preference for continuing this discussion would be by e-mail. Do you have an e-mail