Irrefutable proof of the existence of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter itt23r
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
itt23r said:
yep. you got me. And since you have I’ll tell you a little bit about how it came to be.

I was an atheist when I stumbled onto the germ of the book. It was alluded to in a Marian locution by Fr. Gobbi. And I originally thought the idea that there was a pattern in history to be crazy. But I had to know for sure if I( was gong to have any peace, so I attacked the problem with the falsifiablte hypothesis that if this is truly from God it would have to be perfect. Otherwise it was just a coincidence. And it should only take me a couple of hours to prove what I knew couldn’t be.

Well hours turned into days and then weeks and eventually after 2 years of research where I’d discovered correlation after correlatioln after correlation that stretched alll the way back to the beginning of time I had to finally admit to the unsettling realization that I might be the first atheist in history who could prove the existence of God.

But even so I was still an atheist because there was still a tiny shred of doubt (as there is in scientific theory) and it kept me separated from God as effectively as if it were mount everest.

So the whole thing made me very ill. My conversion would take place two years later when I finally humbled myself and whole heartedly apologized for my past apostacy. And in doing that I had a very dramatic (and somewhat mystical) conversion where I saw the missing pices of the puzzle. Christ as it turned out was the lynchpin that made sense of everything. And that was in December of 1996. 15 years of further research (and tons of editing) later the book is finally ready for the public.
Click to expand...
Amazing.
 
Now as to the latest from the Archdiocese, they have graciously allowed me to keep the accolade as long as i make it clear that it does not constitute an endorsement. Their reluctance to endorse is due mainly to some theological issues raised by the censor at the time it was reviewed. And there are three main issues, two of which I feel were misunderstandings. But the third is a legitimate concern. They are
  1. The censor felt that some of the scientific dates generated by the 2/3rds Rule were out of whack with science.
  2. The censor questioned a conjecture of mine regarding whether or not primordial humans prior to Adam and Eve had souls. I believe he saw in this a conflict with Thomas Aquinas. And
  3. The main problem is, (no matter how elegant) the Church can never allow herself to be bound to an empirical proof of the existence of God because all empirical “proofs” can one day be disproven.
As to objection #1, not knowing who the censor was I question first his credentials for making this objection. I’ve not known a lot of theologians who’ve had much of an acumen for the sciences. But regardless of his credentials there are really only 2 (maybe 3) of the 49 dates generated by the 2/3rds Rule that stray from mainstream scientific opinion and even those have their advocates in the scientific community. The rest of the dates are dead on with modern scientific placements and all (even the stragglers) are well within the range of statistical error objective science would have them. The book is also well referenced on all of the dates so again I think this was an issue the censor and I could have easily ironed out in one meeting.

As to the second objection nowhere in the book do I make any claims about the state of the souls of primordial humans. In ticklish areas like this that popped up throughout the book I left them as questions for true theologians to sort out. And the same goes for that particular issue. So I think this was a place where the censor misread something I’d written. If not I have no qualms at all in changing the text to suit the Archdiocese here or wherever else they see a conflict.

As to the third objection I wholeheartedly agree and fully understand why the Church cannot allow herself to be attached to an empirical proof such as mine. And so the accolade I received from them is not to be seen as an endorsement and the website will be amended accordingly

They further recommended now that the book is finished that I reapply for the nihil obstat which I intend to do…Let me also add that although she cannot endorse there is nothing in my opinion that the Church should find objectionable with regard to theology. And if they do I’ll fix it.
 
itt23r said:
All I am really saying then is you have two option. If anyone feels that the perspective of someone who’s studied this discovery for nearly 20 years has value they will buy the book (or intro) and read it. Or if they prefer they can figure it out for themselves (as I did) and really learn to appreciate it. Either way those are the only options where there is any appreciation for the book so those are the only options I’m offering.
Click to expand...
That seems to be a kind of low level logic, not really inclusive and not defining the “it” to be figured out, assuming that figuring is a legitimate way of discovery in the “spiritual” realm.

Further, I wonder if your theory includes an accounting for such claims as this: “Turiya, which means the fourth state, is knowledge which does not particularize anything. It is not unaware of itself. That is to say, the fourth state is Pure Knowledge which is not conscious of any object, but not unconscious itself. Only he who has realized it even for a trice, has realized the Truth. You are that only.” ~ Ellam Ondre, Chapter 2. Verse 6.
 
To whaddyamean

If the theory does account for such claims it would have to be left for someone like you with an acumen for eastern thought who uncovers it. As I said before, my influences are entirely western so statements like that go way over my head.
 
itt23r said:
To whaddyamean

If the theory does account for such claims it would have to be left for someone like you with an acumen for eastern thought who uncovers it. As I said before, my influences are entirely western so statements like that go way over my head.
Click to expand...
Cool. Just asking.
 
itt23r, your description of the “Gospel of Creation” reminds me of the way Galileo described the Book of Nature.

Galileo Galilei believed that God gave us the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature, both as a means of understanding Him.
"Philosophy is written in this grand book — I mean the universe — which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth. "
Click to expand...
Thoughts?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by empther
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Putting your book online, itt23r ? What about that ?

Why not ?

🍿

*:coffeeread: *

:sleep:

Not a chance. This thread is a gold mine.

Ranking two days ago:

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,883,306 in Books

Ranking today:

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,883,218 in Books
Click to expand...

Doesn’t mean anybody bought one.

Could mean 88 books were taken off the website.
You got to pay to have your book listed, you know. Think they do it for free?

Hard to imagine anybody buying his trash.
I noticed that Middlemarch, by George Eliot ( what’s that, empther? never heard of it. 🤷 ) ranks 38,000.
 
To Orangebookbag

It is interesting that so many of the greats in philosophy have been mathematicians. And I do think it is helpful for seeing the big picture. Never heard that Galileo quote though. Thanks for putting it out there. I think he is right.
 
itt23r wrote:
It is interesting that so many of the greats in philosophy have been mathematicians. And I do think it is helpful for seeing the big picture.
Click to expand...
  1. So the implication is you’re a great philosopher because your junk is based on a mathematical formula? Pretty lame.
  2. Two hundred years ago, many intellectuals played with mathematics just for a pastime. I’ve seen it all over the place in my reading. There are about 150 proofs for the Pythagorean theorem
  3. Name one great philosopher who based his philosophical system on mathematics
 
To empther.

I never said that they’d based their philosophies on mathematics, only that it has helped them to be great philosphers. And of this they’ve all, to my understanding, freely admitted to. The link below lists a few philosopher / mathematicians.

rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/maths/faq006.htm

Aristotle is the one name on the list who’s philiosphy (with its syllogisms and it’s rules of logic) is probably closest to a mathematical system. And those philosophers who draw on Aristotle would likewise have to pay homage to mathematics. Notably missing from the list however is Rene Descartes (the inventor of the cartesian coordinate system)

As for my proposed system I believe both Hegel and Teilhard de Chardin would be very appreciative of a mathematical alignment of natural history.
 
itt23r said:
They further recommended now that the book is finished that I reapply for the nihil obstat which I intend to do…
Click to expand...
A Nihil Obstat is not free use of a stamp. How will people know that the printed copy they bought is actually the writings given the Nihil Obstat - when and if it is given the Nihil Obstat? How can people know that even now the text is not being edited every day and each copy is different?

I wonder if the Chancellor gives Nihil Obstat to self publishers?
 
I wonder if the Chancellor gives Nihil Obstat to self publishers?
Click to expand...
I wonder if anybody on this thread still believes the Archdiocese of Cincinatti stills approves of, or permits use of, itt23r’s “Accolades” page, or in any way thinks his junk is plausible?

I wonder if anybody can make a clear statement or take a clear stand on anything today? 😦

I wonder if anybody realizes that itt23r keeps posting junk to bump his thread up the page and keep it in people’s sights? :mad:
It was way down the page yesterday and I hoped it would disappear, but of course along comes itt23r with a ton of bluster to bump it back up. :banghead:
 
To Abba

If the Nihil Obstat is given it most certanly would necessitate a new edition and you are correct the edition out now though substantially the same should not be viewed as having received it.

Besides this if it is obtained it should be very helpful towards getting an established publisher.interested. While the book was still in the writing and editing phase I came to understand that there are about 1 million books written every year, which is why it is so hard for a book by an unknown author (no matter how great) to get the attention of a publisher. This realization was kind of disheartening and it was those odds primarily that convinced me to bypass that route altogether. But with the Nihil Obstat in hand those odds should be greatly reduced. Any book that has it should have a much easier time getting through a publisher’s door, especially if that publisher specializes in Catholic books.
 
itt23r said:
yep. you got me. And since you have I’ll tell you a little bit about how it came to be.

I was an atheist when I stumbled onto the germ of the book. It was alluded to in a Marian locution by Fr. Gobbi. And I originally thought the idea that there was a pattern in history to be crazy. But I had to know for sure if I( was gong to have any peace, so I attacked the problem with the falsifiablte hypothesis that if this is truly from God it would have to be perfect. Otherwise it was just a coincidence. And it should only take me a couple of hours to prove what I knew couldn’t be.

Well hours turned into days and then weeks and eventually after 2 years of research where I’d discovered correlation after correlatioln after correlation that stretched alll the way back to the beginning of time I had to finally admit to the unsettling realization that I might be the first atheist in history who could prove the existence of God.

But even so I was still an atheist because there was still a tiny shred of doubt (as there is in scientific theory) and it kept me separated from God as effectively as if it were mount everest.

So the whole thing made me very ill. My conversion would take place two years later when I finally humbled myself and whole heartedly apologized for my past apostacy. And in doing that I had a very dramatic (and somewhat mystical) conversion where I saw the missing pices of the puzzle. Christ as it turned out was the lynchpin that made sense of everything. And that was in December of 1996. 15 years of further research (and tons of editing) later the book is finally ready for the public.
Click to expand...
Why did you use a subterfuge to try and get members of this forum interested in a thread promoting your book?
 
To Langdell

You can call it a subterfuge if you like. That is not how it was, however. And if you look through the thread you’ll see that for yourself. I started this thread originally just to gauge what Catholic attitudes would be to the book and how I should best market it. And I saw no reason at the time to prejudice the audience by announcing right off the bat who I was.
 
itt23r said:
To Langdell

You can call it a subterfuge if you like. That is not how it was, however. And if you look through the thread you’ll see that for yourself. I started this thread originally just to gauge what Catholic attitudes would be to the book and how I should best market it. And I saw no reason at the time to prejudice the audience by announcing right off the bat who I was.
Click to expand...
I think you should have said that up front.
 
To Langdell

And this is exactly the sort of advice I came onto this forum to get. Thank you and from your’s and other’s comments on this issue I think I have come to the same conclusion. Next time i will…
 
You’re quite welcome. My apologies if someone had already raised this issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top