Demonstration of the existence of God and some additional things

[sha-23-dgi]

I am French.
Translate this document if you want, but at your own risk.

I am not lying and what I say is true.

Thank you.

Cartographie de l'œuvre (BD).pdf

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Rules require that material for discussion be posted, not presented in links or in attachments.

Also, we’re a science site, and English is the standard language of science (at the moment, at least)

 

[sha-23-dgi]

Ok,

Link removed by moderator

 

Have a nice day.

Edited March 5 by Phi for All
Material must be posted here, no links!

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Can you copy/paste after translating? We don't know you so we're not clicking on outside links. It's against our rules, for the safety of our members.

 

[sha-23-dgi]

 

3 343 / 5 000

 

Of course, but I can't translate everything, because it would be too long and there are technical drawings in addition. Here is a step of the reasoning connected to the other arguments.

 

                                                                                                      PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD - 2

                                                                                         (proof by algorithms and language)

 

First algorithm : we classify all the words of a perfect dictionary into three categories only, even if we add some.

 

There are the words of "who is god?", that is to say inter-subjectivity (vain, proud, melancholy, courageous, intrepid etc ...).

 

There are the "pagan" words, that is to say simplicity (table, chair, horse, turtle, bag, bottle etc ...).

 

Comment : "What is God?" is neither leader nor slave.

 

Finally, there are the learned words, that is to say science (dimensions, energy, space, time, information etc ...).

 

Second algorithm : among the last category of words, we search and find the most important ones. The occurrences "God generates ..." mainly go with the word "energy". As a result of which the word ENERGY seems to be the most important concept in science.

 

Third algorithm : the definition of a definition of a definition comes back to God, so the definition of a definition is sufficient to the conditions of eternity and we must extract the definition from it.

 

It is the product of quantities between them.

 

Theorem : the candidate of all quantities is water (mineralized).

Moreover, all topological forms can be reduced to a sphere without breaking the edges.

 

What is the definition of "energy"? It is the product of mass [m] by a speed [v] squared then cubed. God is no more a definition of "who is god?" than of "what is God?" ", so God is rather in the mass [m] than in the speed [v]. Indeed, the second does not exist : it is entropy. "God is negentropic" means that the infinitely large is also (the mass). Let us note, (m₀) this mass.

 

Commentary : after having algorithmically browsed a perfect dictionary in addition to science, we equip ourselves with a bible (BJC : 2015) and we look for what Eve means.

 

Fourth algorithm : there are a certain number of dimensions that can be united in a few forces that pre-exist, because Eve is a geometric object that was deformed : the fall is real and the perfect void does not exist. How many dimensions are there ?

 

There are three dimensions of space, six of mass and three spiritual ones. Eve is dodecadimensional. This means that a bio-mathematical boundary exists, because (m₀) is necessarily undeformable and this mass is a greater and more important force than those that unite the object that animates us. Consequently, there are one or more dimensions between them that bind us to this mass, even if the fall is real. Finally, this mass is not God, but communicates with the geometric object (Eve).

 

Fifth algorithm : language allows us to characterize a definition exactly. What is the definition of this mass ? The greatest force exerted by God is an undeformable mass (m₀). "Above" and "with us" is "Ad" and "supra". God is above the assembly of all living things and with all of us.

 

It is therefore an undeformable adimensionnelle mass and God is Adimensionnel (his movement is supra-magnetic).

Edited March 5 by sha-23-dgi

[iNow]

Totally worth the wait. I genuflect in your general direction, sir

[zapatos]

I liked it better when it was in a language I could not read.

[sha-23-dgi]

Pour vous Dieu n'existe pas, seulement avec une tête pensante, ce qui est totalement absurde. Si seulement vous pouviez rejoindre le Christ, ce serait moins absurde. Que le temps est long ! L'éternité n'a ni début ni fin ... on a déjà payé de nos propres vies et vous allez en redemander jusqu'à plus soif. Good luck.

Edited March 5 by sha-23-dgi

[TheVat]

36 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I liked it better when it was in a language I could not read.

You were able to translate it?  Still in gibberish, on my device.

 

1 hour ago, sha-23-dgi said:

Eve is dodecadimensional.

That is so hot.

1 hour ago, sha-23-dgi said:

communicates with the geometric object (Eve).

"Don't know much about geometry..."

[Phi for All]

Your paper only works if the reader is already a believer. You make assumptions most people aren't willing to make. I, for one, think your Jesus is a horrible person, willing to destroy a fig tree just because it couldn't feed him. You need to argue for a god's existence in the first place, and even then your assertions are mostly ridiculous.

I don't think you're "lying", but I think you've been deceived like so many. Look what it made you do! Your document is full of atrocious science, completely misunderstood, and you made up the weirdest things to fill in the gaps in your knowledge. You need to fight ignorance with knowledge, not make up more ignorance. 

[Eise]

12 hours ago, sha-23-dgi said:

First algorithm

And you don't know what an algorithm is.

[dedo]

On 3/5/2025 at 11:39 AM, sha-23-dgi said:

PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD - 2

As a believer, I don't see any evidence for the "existence of God" in what you posted, and that is okay.  If it works for you, great.

What convinced me, may not mean anything for you, and that is okay too.  I know of no way to convince people of God's existence scientifically, meaning by a reproducible experiment that would convince a non-participating nonbeliever to change his/her mind.

What I have seen work is personal encounters that have occurred for those that seek God that a nonbeliever would call "confirmation bias" but are often so profound from the POV of the believer at least, that a non-believer's argument has no weight.  An example would be a near death experience (NDE) where someone observes & can recount his emergency care & meets Jesus prior to recovery.  Another example is if someone sees a profound example of personal behavior that acts as an attractor.  That seems to be the way Creation was designed.

My own belief started close to Pascal's wager meaning there little downside to belief & massive upside.  For me, belief in this life has had massive upside from personal experiences as well & I hope there is the same in the after life.  For example, if you go to You Tube & watch NDEs & other posts about hell, a recurring statement is the majority of those in hell did not believe in hell's existence, confirming Pascal's Wager if those turn out to be true.  

[Phi for All]

On 3/22/2025 at 7:17 PM, dedo said:

What I have seen work is personal encounters that have occurred for those that seek God that a nonbeliever would call "confirmation bias" but are often so profound from the POV of the believer at least, that a non-believer's argument has no weight. 

These "personal encounters" are the most suspect of all. The person who had the encounter is absolutely convinced of what happened, so is hardly an objective observer.

I've had experiences where my senses were tested and I jumped to conclusions about what was really happening. At the time, I was convinced that what happened to me was exactly what it seemed to be. Inevitably, I found out what had actually happened and realized my imagination had taken over and convinced me that my "reality" had changed somehow. 

I've heard many stories of how folks met their gods, or Bigfoot, or a ghost, or some other supernatural encounter which they can't explain but are nevertheless convinced happened exactly as they remember it. I've never heard of anything that couldn't be explained without jumping the shark.

[dedo]

On 3/25/2025 at 11:25 AM, Phi for All said:

I've never heard of anything that couldn't be explained without jumping the shark.

Funny, but never heard the term "jumping the shark" & don't understand it.  Have had some experience with them though although for many years I did not consider them a statistically significant risk.  Surfers often downplay risks, & sometimes pay the price.  Getting double bumped in the back in cold water was what caught my attention & made me glad I said my usual "Hail Mary" before going out.  This hard core Christian surfer dude I knew taught me to say a prayer before going out & I kept it up.  That likely won't mean anything to someone else though.  Another weird "coincidence" was when I was working a night shift & planned to drive to the OBX of NC the next AM.  We got a shark victim that night from the exact place where we usually went, that we planned to go to the next day.  We still went, but surfed somewhere else.  At that time, the locals chummed for sharks off piers, right next to where people swam & surfed, unbeknownst to me.  Someone got killed & someone hurt less than a mile from a pier down there.  Those kinds of hazards are everywhere in life.  I like being "warned" about them that I believe religion helps with, although I can't prove it in a reproducible experiment.  Another "coincidence" was a premonition I had when a neighbor's kid was excited to tell me he was going with his parents to the West Coast of Maui.  I knew an easy break there & was about to tell the kid about it.  I had a creepy "premonition" & kept my mouth shut.  Sure enough, a surfer got killed at the exact break on the West Coast of Maui while the kid was there, that I almost told the kid about.  The kid might have been the most inexperienced surfer there & attracted the tiger shark had he been there.  Instead he went somewhere else.  I like not having my neighbors blame me for killing their kid.  So that works for me.

There may be a way to use science to test for God's existence for individuals, but not for one individual to convince another.  A person can read the Bible & see if it works, in their own lives.  For me it worked.  For someone else, something different might get his / her attention.

In fact, apart from religion, I have found it difficult if not nearly impossible to change a POV of someone in an uncontrolled, unvetted, environment like the internet. To me, that is an important problem that if solved would allow people to combine knowledge toward some goal.  Perhaps the key is to forget about POV & opinions, & just try to solve a problem.

So for this thread maybe the ? should be not:  "Is ____ evidence for God's existence?"  And instead:  "What would you do to test for God's existence for either yourself, or other people?"

 

 

 

[iNow]

7 hours ago, dedo said:

So for this thread maybe the ? should be not:  "Is ____ evidence for God's existence?"  And instead:  "What would you do to test for God's existence

Step 1: Define god in a falsifiable way and in a manner which enjoys shared consensus so the test becomes valid. 

Go ahead. I’ll wait. <finds cozy spot for a centuries long nap>

 

7 hours ago, dedo said:

I have found it difficult if not nearly impossible to change a POV of someone in an uncontrolled, unvetted, environment like the internet.

Have you considered perhaps making better arguments in a more logical, structured, articulate and coherent way? Not perfect, but certainly not impossible. Give it a try sometime!

 

7 hours ago, dedo said:

never heard the term "jumping the shark" & don't understand it.

If only someone would invent something like a “search engine” or “library” to help illuminate the dark corners of our ignorance. 
 

https://www.idioms.online/jump-the-shark/
 

Quote

Meaning of Idiom ‘Jump the Shark’

1. When a television series reaches a point where it includes unlikely, ridiculous or far-fetched events in a desperate attempt to stay entertaining or maintain novelty.

2. To do something ridiculous or questionable out of desperation to get attention or remain popular.

Usage

This idiom is usually used in regards to television shows, as in the first definition, when having ‘jumped the shark’ signals that the series has reached its peak and is declining in quality. 1 The expression is sometimes used in a more general sense, as in the second definition.

 

Have a happy day, Fonz. 

[exchemist]

7 hours ago, dedo said:

              ...............[snip]....................

There may be a way to use science to test for God's existence for individuals, but not for one individual to convince another.  A person can read the Bible & see if it works, in their own lives.  For me it worked.  For someone else, something different might get his / her attention.

In fact, apart from religion, I have found it difficult if not nearly impossible to change a POV of someone in an uncontrolled, unvetted, environment like the internet. To me, that is an important problem that if solved would allow people to combine knowledge toward some goal.  Perhaps the key is to forget about POV & opinions, & just try to solve a problem.

So for this thread maybe the ? should be not:  "Is ____ evidence for God's existence?"  And instead:  "What would you do to test for God's existence for either yourself, or other people?"

 

 

 

Science requires reproducible evidence, that is, evidence obtainable by more than one observer, in more than one observational setup.  That precludes experiences unique to an individual from being scientific evidence. So they  cannot be considered part of a scientific  "test".

 

[dedo]

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

Science requires reproducible evidence, that is, evidence obtainable by more than one observer, in more than one observational setup.  That precludes experiences unique to an individual from being scientific evidence. So they  cannot be considered part of a scientific  "test".

I think you mean "the best science" or "the most reliable science".  Not all science is chemistry or physics.  Safety science, & political science, and even military science (if that is a science) don't necessarily rely on double blind reproduction of experiments but can give a lot of weight to a single event since you can't design an experiment to measure the number of airline crashes with two different approaches & repeat it 5 times to be sure.  

Many lives depend on those sciences & their less than perfect methodology.  Interestingly, the one with the lowest error rate is safety science, while the other two have very high error rates which is why having different disciplines of science learn from each other matters.

[exchemist]

10 minutes ago, dedo said:

I think you mean "the best science" or "the most reliable science".  Not all science is chemistry or physics.  Safety science, & political science, and even military science (if that is a science) don't necessarily rely on double blind reproduction of experiments but can give a lot of weight to a single event since you can't design an experiment to measure the number of airline crashes with two different approaches & repeat it 5 times to be sure.  

Many lives depend on those sciences & their less than perfect methodology.  Interestingly, the one with the lowest error rate is safety science, while the other two have very high error rates which is why having different disciplines of science learn from each other matters.

When I don't qualify it I mean natural science, as most people do. I said nothing about double blind by the way. I meant what I said.  

Edited Thursday at 03:52 PM by exchemist

[m_m]

12 hours ago, iNow said:

Step 1: Define god in a falsifiable way and in a manner which enjoys shared consensus so the test becomes valid. 

Define your_self in a falsifiable way and in a manner which enjoys shared consensus so the test becomes valid. 

***

In my opinion, all these questions about evidence of the Divine are a lack of faith. Because if you feel the presence of God in your life, in your thoughts, you don't need 'evidence'. 

On the other hand, what evidence? Just turn around. 

 

Edited Thursday at 11:24 PM by m_m

[iNow]

Faith is the ONLY thing people have for belief in god(s) and is perhaps the single worst reason to accept something as valid. 

[dimreepr]

On 3/23/2025 at 1:17 AM, dedo said:

As a believer, I don't see any evidence for the "existence of God" in what you posted, and that is okay.  If it works for you, great.

What convinced me, may not mean anything for you, and that is okay too.  I know of no way to convince people of God's existence scientifically, meaning by a reproducible experiment that would convince a non-participating nonbeliever to change his/her mind.

What I have seen work is personal encounters that have occurred for those that seek God that a nonbeliever would call "confirmation bias" but are often so profound from the POV of the believer at least, that a non-believer's argument has no weight.  An example would be a near death experience (NDE) where someone observes & can recount his emergency care & meets Jesus prior to recovery.  Another example is if someone sees a profound example of personal behavior that acts as an attractor.  That seems to be the way Creation was designed.

My own belief started close to Pascal's wager meaning there little downside to belief & massive upside.  For me, belief in this life has had massive upside from personal experiences as well & I hope there is the same in the after life.  For example, if you go to You Tube & watch NDEs & other posts about hell, a recurring statement is the majority of those in hell did not believe in hell's existence, confirming Pascal's Wager if those turn out to be true.  

Close, but no cigar.

When one understands the Bible's meaning, there's no need for a god or an afterlife; karma's all we need to believe in, for which we have plenty of scientifically viable evidence.

Which is what Pascal's wager actually meant. 

13 hours ago, m_m said:

Define your_self in a falsifiable way and in a manner which enjoys shared consensus so the test becomes valid. 

Self-righteousness or piety, AKA self-deluded, and the army is growing...

Edited 21 hours ago by dimreepr

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

karma's all we need to believe in, for which we have plenty of scientifically viable evidence.

 

What evidence is that?  Karma is built on a couple premises - one, that we reincarnate, and two, that the universe has some means of recording all our actions, assessing their causal impact and calibrating our future life experiences in accordance with them to impart justice and moral growth.  If you have evidence of this, I'm prepared to be gobsmacked.   

 

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, TheVat said:

What evidence is that?  Karma is built on a couple premises - one, that we reincarnate, and two, that the universe has some means of recording all our actions, assessing their causal impact and calibrating our future life experiences in accordance with them to impart justice and moral growth.  If you have evidence of this, I'm prepared to be gobsmacked.   

 

Have you ever felt guilty?

Or is PTSD a ghost?

[m_m]

20 hours ago, iNow said:

Faith is the ONLY thing people have for belief in god(s) and is perhaps the single worst reason to accept something as valid. 

I mean, if one has faith, one doesn't need 'evidence'. 

Karma is an interesting concept. Because, ultimately, people judge their deeds themselves..

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, m_m said:

I mean, if one has faith, one doesn't need 'evidence'. 

You do if you want to make assertions about anything here, because we don't trust what you say just because you say it.