The God Theory

[Tork]

*This is not a religion, merely a theory on why the belief exists. Feel free to deny/defy it.*

This is a theory I created at a very young age and developed over the years... I use numbers to achieve a "universal picture" in a way I can only describe fluently, and so you can perceive the vision better. Thank you.


X=1+1=2

1 is equivalent to a question.
+ is equivalent to the merging of.
2 is equivalent to the answer.

To explain in detail how I see this equation; Imagine I am having a conversation with a peer. I ask him, "What is the meaning of death?" (Or 1) He casually replies, "It's when a organism has ceased living." I ask him, "Why?" (+1) He will respond with a more meaningful answer. Again I ask "why?" This continues until my peer can no longer answer my question. This ending of answers usually is justified by the knowledge of the mind.

But what happens to the question when it is reduced far beyond the human limits of perception?(=2)

I believe a center point occurs. This point is which all questions degrade to, and all question derive from.(X)

The center point, if replaced with the the universe, becomes God like. A point in which all began, and eventually end. Yet this is something our minds cannot perceive because we cannot deduct this far. Or can we?
Essentially it means that X is always making 1 question another 1, which will continue to achieve 2.

-Krot

[Flannel Jesus]

The equation is kinda useless and really a distraction, honestly. I think you'd be able to present this idea in a clearer and more succinct way if you got rid of that whole "X = 1+1 = 2" bit, it doesn't help your presentation.

[Tork]

The equation is kinda useless and really a distraction, honestly. I think you'd be able to present this idea in a clearer and more succinct way if you got rid of that whole "X = 1+1 = 2" bit, it doesn't help your presentation.

I've been told the same thing twice now. Really in my eyes, nothing comes before 1. So the whole theory of giving a picture to relate too is the purpose of its being.

Thanks, you're my first reply.

[James L Walker]

The reasoning of religion finally revealed: I believe in "god" because it makes me feel "good".

As a atheist myself this is what I constantly observe.

[Calrid]

The equation is kinda useless and really a distraction, honestly. I think you'd be able to present this idea in a clearer and more succinct way if you got rid of that whole "X = 1+1 = 2" bit, it doesn't help your presentation.

I've been told the same thing twice now. Really in my eyes, nothing comes before 1. So the whole theory of giving a picture to relate too is the purpose of its being.

Thanks, you're my first reply.

Actually a lot of divisions come before one, 7/8 for example. The problem is in taking maths as some overarching reality instead of what it is: an invented abstraction. Take it as a fundamental constant of reality and you end up making claims that do not bear any relation to real world events. Maths is an approximation at best.

Let me justify real world events mathematically, well I can't, because no matter how close I get to an answer, there is always a margin of error. Pi for example never equals itself, and cannot at any scale. So a perfect sphere is impossible, or even a perfect circle. We have to accept that maths is helpful but it is not real in the same way an apple is. Hence any logical theory based solely on maths will fail, because it does not apply beyond abstraction. 1 is not an existent entity, 1 apple is.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't think he based his theory in math. I think he came up with this stuff, and then after the fact tried to add some mathematical elements to it. It didn't really work though, because you can't just throw numbers around like that and expect it to make sense. I mean, the math in the OP makes about as much sense as saying "I have an apple and you have an orange, and an apple = 6 and an orange = 9, so together we have 15 fruit." Like, I'm just making up numbers at that point. That's more or less how I see the math part of the OP - useless and made up. They don't add clarity to his idea, they don't even seem to correspond to his idea at all.

But, he does think that in any case where there are 2 options, each one has a 50% chance of being true, so it just fits the data that he really know how to properly utilize numbers.

[Stoic Guardian]

I've been told the same thing twice now. Really in my eyes, nothing comes before 1.

Zero comes before One.

Often people consider Zero to be = to "nothing". But perhaps that is simply a false perception based on the limits of the mind.

[Stoic Guardian]

The reasoning of religion finally revealed: I believe in "god" because it makes me feel "good".

As a atheist myself this is what I constantly observe.

That does seem to be a common thing but is it "the" reason people believe?

For some I'm sure it is.

For others (like myself) it is simply based on how we see the world, belief in Gods makes sense to us based on a variety of things.

[Tork]

I don't think he based his theory in math. I think he came up with this stuff, and then after the fact tried to add some mathematical elements to it. It didn't really work though, because you can't just throw numbers around like that and expect it to make sense. I mean, the math in the OP makes about as much sense as saying "I have an apple and you have an orange, and an apple = 6 and an orange = 9, so together we have 15 fruit." Like, I'm just making up numbers at that point. That's more or less how I see the math part of the OP - useless and made up. They don't add clarity to his idea, they don't even seem to correspond to his idea at all.

But, he does think that in any case where there are 2 options, each one has a 50% chance of being true, so it just fits the data that he really know how to properly utilize numbers.

When I drew this idea originally I started drawing a circle, a center point within the circle, and imaginary lines drawing from the point and ending at the inner circle. The center point I explained to myself as X, The lines that came from the center where 1+1 (and infinity pushing the walls of the inner circle outwards.) and the circle being the outcome 2.

Also if you flip a coin once, the chances of it landing on heads is?

Again for the 3rd time, there is no mathematical equation. This is just a picture of something that I could describe in my own terms, therefore the much easier way is the way is just described.
If I wanted to talk about math I would join a mathematics blog...

[Flannel Jesus]

But, he does think that in any case where there are 2 options, each one has a 50% chance of being true, so it just fits the data that he really know how to properly utilize numbers.

Also if you flip a coin once, the chances of it landing on heads is? [/quote]
The fact that you're still trying to defend this concept betrays the fact that you must have been lying in your other thread when you said you were aware that that's not how it works.

Do you think that in any case where there are two options, each one has a 50% chance of being true? Is that what you think or not?

[Tork]

Do you think that in any case where there are two options, each one has a 50% chance of being true? Is that what you think or not?

Neither*

There is a 0-99% chance for everything. For the same reason there is no chance for anything.

But to add outside forces; If you created a flawless machine to flip a coin the same way each time, and the same exact environment (Strength of flip, distance, and surface.) each flip. The same thing will happen every time. Can you imagine a 99.99% chance of a coin landing on heads every time? I've seen it.

The reason there is chance is because of human error and the chance for human error is equivalent to 50%. Either something will or happen, or something else will.
So please forgive me if I'm not using textbook settings because I no longer believe in the textbook experiments. I know that things can be forced and that all humans are faulty.



B

[Flannel Jesus]

Can you imagine a 99.99% chance of a coin landing on heads every time? I've seen it.

If you've actually seen chance, then...well, then you're not speaking English. Chance isn't visible, so I doubt you've seen it.

Now, if what you actually mean is that you've flipped, or seen someone, flip a coin 10,000 times in a row and 9999 of those times, it landed on heads, I have three things to say:

1) the coin was most definitely fixed
2) you just provided an example of why there being two options doesn't necessarily mean there's a 50/50 chance, so good job debunking yourself
3) why did you watch someone flip a coin 10,000 times in a row?

[Tork]

Can you imagine a 99.99% chance of a coin landing on heads every time? I've seen it.

If you've actually seen chance, then...well, then you're not speaking English. Chance isn't visible, so I doubt you've seen it.

Now, if what you actually mean is that you've flipped, or seen someone, flip a coin 10,000 times in a row and 9999 of those times, it landed on heads, I have three things to say:

1) the coin was most definitely fixed
2) you just provided an example of why there being two options doesn't necessarily mean there's a 50/50 chance, so good job debunking yourself
3) why did you watch someone flip a coin 10,000 times in a row?

1) The coin was fixed into an environment of exact same intentions. I said that. (You are trying to say cheating?)
2) I proved "your" example, mostly to show you how fixed on a textbook you are.
3) I didn't say I watched every flip, or watched "Someone" flip a coin to began with. Again another sign of your deduction skills. But I have seen it? (What is it? The outcome, not particularly the experiment.)

You need to be shown something impossible to began to accept it. The best way to see it is to show yourself.

[Tork]

Also Flannel, You must understand that nothing has happened yet. "Nothing". The chance for something to happen is 50%. Why? Because nothing and something are going to happen either way. There is no 0%.

[Flannel Jesus]

i'm sure that sounded very wise to you when you typed it. it doesn't mean anything to anybody else though.

[Calrid]

nm. oops.

[Tork]

i'm sure that sounded very wise to you when you typed it. it doesn't mean anything to anybody else though.

I'm sure you feel the same. Again, good fight.

(I really hate to get off tropic though, and I'm not sure if anyone in this time is ready to accept somethings, due to the cage on their minds.)

[Moreno]

The reasoning of religion finally revealed: I believe in "god" because it makes me feel "good".

As a atheist myself this is what I constantly observe.

How does one observe this?

[jam2001]

First I would like to point out how inaccurate it is to use numeric values in any discussion of God because they are finit units by definition. The real problem though is that you assume there are no answers to you questions merging on yet another finite oint that could never contain any concept of God but monotheism.

[James L Walker]

The reasoning of religion finally revealed: I believe in "god" because it makes me feel "good".

As a atheist myself this is what I constantly observe.

How does one observe this?

Lack of evidence but the insecurity for the need to believe.

[jam2001]

How can there be intellligent discussion if you presume to know not only my mind but my emotions. Respecting that someone else is capable of seeing things from a perspective other than your own limitations is a prerequisite for debate.

[Tork]

First I would like to point out how inaccurate it is to use numeric values in any discussion of God because they are finit units by definition. The real problem though is that you assume there are no answers to you questions merging on yet another finite oint that could never contain any concept of God but monotheism.

I would also like to point how inaccurate they're numeric value's are also, but I think I have.
There is always an answer to my questions, and there are always questions to my answers.

How can there be intellligent discussion if you presume to know not only my mind but my emotions. Respecting that someone else is capable of seeing things from a perspective other than your own limitations is a prerequisite for debate.

You're only as intelligent as the man next to you, and the same applies to his emotions but not his mind.

It currently is...

[jam2001]

Tork I just want to say that you must be a very gifted individual to have had the insight of yours represented by that equation. I agree wholeheartedly with the concept you express but it only came to me in a book I recently read. In that book the author describes how we either by nature or by being taught always try and digress our reasoning to a central point as you describe. In algebra we always try and reduce and equation to balance it in its smallest form at the equal sign. The author shows that in more complex calculus we try and digress as close as we can to the Bernoulli limitation of zero. The big question he asks is why is zero limited? He goes on to state that zero is limited because it is the inner limit to our reasoning that keeps us from seeing beyond a dimensional universe. He states that zero is limited from us because even though it occupies a place in the number line it does not really exist. It is the center of all dimensional thinking where in becomes out but that is only our limitation. He calls zero the residence of chaos energy because it is the source of reaoning and therefor contains all that exists and yet is so far beyond our awareness that for us it does not exist.

[Tork]

Tork I just want to say that you must be a very gifted individual to have had the insight of yours represented by that equation. I agree wholeheartedly with the concept you express but it only came to me in a book I recently read. In that book the author describes how we either by nature or by being taught always try and digress our reasoning to a central point as you describe. In algebra we always try and reduce and equation to balance it in its smallest form at the equal sign. The author shows that in more complex calculus we try and digress as close as we can to the Bernoulli limitation of zero. The big question he asks is why is zero limited? He goes on to state that zero is limited because it is the inner limit to our reasoning that keeps us from seeing beyond a dimensional universe. He states that zero is limited from us because even though it occupies a place in the number line it does not really exist. It is the center of all dimensional thinking where in becomes out but that is only our limitation. He calls zero the residence of chaos energy because it is the source of reaoning and therefor contains all that exists and yet is so far beyond our awareness that for us it does not exist.

What is the name of the book/author?

This is perfect... Very good, Thanks.

[jam2001]

Torx the name of the book is "My Heart is on the Left Side'.