Proving Divine
Ordo Ipetvs Gratia

There are seven pillars of Wisdom (ways of contemplating knowledge); Proving Divine is presented here in the seven different ways as an example of how to use each one.

Number two was found by Christopher Langan, and number three was found by Baruch Spinoza [the space in those sections are used to link to and correct their work].

Appreciation should go out to the atheists who have helped find and refine the other five, besides to the giants who's shoulders we now stand on.

## Pure Logical Tautology Proof

Higher order logics using standard semantics do not have a completeness theorem. Using particular kinds of non-logical axioms in first order logic creates incompleteness. Using synonymical logical tautologies (A=B, where B is a synonym of A) as axioms creates incompleteness.

These three facts have convinced many to turn their backs on rationalism, or to believe that all non-trivial truth must be sought within incomplete logical systems.

However, pure logical tautologies (A=A) in first order logic create completeness without conjectural assumption; which necessitates the existence of eternal truth, the fundamental belief of rationalism.

Once the syntactics are established (proof-theoretic) then there is the need to switch into the semantics (model-theoretic), such as with the identity of indiscernibles or axiom of extensionality;

The identity of indiscernibles For any x and y, if x and y have all the same properties, then x is identical to y.

The axiom of extensionality Given any set A and any set B, if for every set C, C is a member of A if and only if C is a member of B, then A is equal to B. #*: The identity of indiscernibles is an ontological principle which states that two or more objects or entities are identical (are one and the same entity), if they have all their properties in common; Or in set-theoretic terms, the axiom of extensionality, a set is determined uniquely by it's members.

In other words, every concept is determined uniquely by it's description and not by it's name. So, anything that is syntatically proven can have it's description compared, and if the desciption corresponds, it is one and the same thing; the syntatic proof and the semantic model (name) become associated.

The word "nothing", is a reference equivalent to {}, the empty set. The word "nothing", is not nothing (a reference is not the referent).

The popular syllogism

(P1) Nothing is better than eternal happiness; (P2) a ham sandwich is better than nothing; Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness is using higher-order logic ("better than"), which in the English use of the word "nothing", creates ambiguity between comparing elements of sets (P1) and comparing the sets themselves (P2). When rewritten in a mathematical tone it is clear no inference can be made;

(P1) The set of all things that are better than eternal happiness is {}; (P2) the set {ham sandwich} is better than the set {}. [1]

the empty set exists

proof; (|- ∃{})

Assuming nothing (i.e. having no non-logical axioms), it follows that there is an assuming, or thinking;

And this thinking, amounts to the existence of the empty set!

Note; This is purer than Descartes' cognito ergo sum.

nothing is nothing

proof; ({} ≡ {})∧({} ⇒ {})∧(id{}:{} → {})∧(∃{} → ∃{})

Logical Tautology (1); nothing is nothing

Four senses of “is” are meant here; of identity, of implication, of predication, and of existence;

Corollary (1); nothing equals nothing; {} = {}

Corollary (2); nothing implies nothing; {} ⇒ {}

Corollary (3); nothing has the property of nothing; id{}:{} → {}

Corollary (4); nothing exists as nothing; ∃{} → ∃{}

something is self-causal

proof; ({} ≡ {})∧({} ⇒ {})

Logical Tautology (2); nothing equals nothing and nothing implies nothing

ergo nothing is not implicated with something

Note; "nothing is not...", is the contraposition of "everything is..."

ergo everything is implicated with something

Note; Two or more things that are solely and exclusively implicated with each other can be understood as one thing implicated with itself. e.g. If a group of cells (such as the ones that make up your body) are solely and exclusively implicated with each other, they can be understood as one thing (namely your body) implicated with itself i.e. you are cybernetic.

ergo something is self-implicated

Note; Relevant implication suggests causation and is correlation. When it is impossible for there to be missing variables correlation necessarily is causation. Since everything is implicated here it is impossible for there to be missing variables.

ergo something is self-causal Q.E.D.

Note; "causal" is not in the same declension as "caused"; the latter refers to an event in time, the former refers to a process through time. Self-causal means self-deterministic or teleological. Self-determinism is consciousness.

something is self-descriptive

proof; ({} ≡ {})∧(id{}:{} → {})

Logical Tautology (3); nothing equals nothing and nothing has the property of nothing

ergo Nothing is nondescript. - Something is self-descriptive.

Note; Endomorphic self-description is self-manifestation.

something is essentially existence

proof; ({} ≡ {})∧(∃{} → ∃{})

Logical Tautology (4); nothing equals nothing and nothing exists as nothing

ergo Nothing is nonexistence. - Something is essentially existence.

proof; ({} ⇒ {})∧(id{}:{} → {})

Logical Tautology (5); nothing implies nothing and nothing has the property of nothing

ergo Nothing is made of nothing. - Everything is made of something.

something is the cause of all things

proof; ({} ⇒ {})∧(∃{} → ∃{})

Logical Tautology (6); nothing implies nothing and nothing exists as nothing

ergo Nothing is the cause of nothing. - Something is the cause of all things.

something has always existed everywhere

proof; (id{}:{} → {})∧(∃{} → ∃{})

Logical Tautology (7); nothing has the property of nothing and nothing exists as nothing

ergo Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed. - Something has always existed everywhere.

One thing is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere.

Proof--The true definition of a thing neither involves nor expresses anything beyond the particular characteristics of the thing defined. From this it follows that--No definition implies or expresses how many individuals of the defined thing exist, inasmuch as it expresses nothing beyond the particular characteristics of the thing defined. There is necessarily for each individual existent thing a cause why it should exist [T6]. This cause of existence must either be contained in the particular characteristics and definition of the thing defined [T2], or must be postulated apart from such definition. If a given number of individuals of a particular thing exist, there must be some cause for the existence of exactly that number, neither more nor less. Consequently, the cause of each of them, must necessarily be sought externally to each individual thing. It therefore follows that, everything which may consist of several individuals must have an external cause. And, as it has been shown already that existence appertains to the particular characteristics of something [T4], existence must necessarily be included in its definition; and from its definition alone existence must be deducible. But from its definition we cannot infer the existence of several things; therefore it follows that there is only one thing that is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere. Q.E.D.

[adaptation from the end of Note II, PROP. VIII, Of God, Spinoza's Ethics] [3]

conclusion

The one thing is a dual-aspect monism-pantheism (essence of existence, that everything is made of), that is omniscient (self-causal, self-descriptive), omnipotent (cause of all things), eternal (has always existed), and omnipresent (everywhere). By virtue of the identity of indiscernibles the one thing is the Divine. Therefore the Divine necessarily exists. Q.E.D.

## Synonymical Tautology Proof

Langan's CTMU

http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/2-3/langan_ctmu.php

http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm

http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Q&A/index.html

http://www.teleologic.org/

Unbound Telesis is energy

Langan's work is based on an isomorphism between language and reality.

Quoting the wikipedia on isomorphism; "In a certain sense, isomorphic structures are structurally identical, if you choose to ignore finer-grained differences that may arise from how they are defined." "Equality is when two objects are "literally the same", while isomorphism is when two objects "can be made to correspond..." in some respect.

Langan is suggesting that language and reality are structurally identical from the perspective of informational correspondence. He is basically arguing for a synonymical logical tautology which creates incompleteness because of ignoring the finer-grained differences; and this is why he treats the Unbound Telesis as quasi-real instead of actually real, and why he presumes there is no actual/real continuum, and why he assumes the hology has no causal input to matter.

Unbound Telesis is described or defined as "an ultimate self-generalization" as "a featureless existential potential" or "undifferentiated ontological potential".

Since existence or being, pertains to the particular characteristics of Unbound Telesis, it follows; that

(1) Unbound Telesis cannot be created or destroyed, that is, Unbound Telesis is eternal.

(2) Everything that exists is made of or derived from Unbound Telesis.

Unbound Telesis is a "generalization" that is "featureless", "undifferentiated", or "infinite".

However there clearly are finitary informational distinctions of existence. It therefore follows; that

(3) Finitary informational distinctions of existence can be created and destroyed.

(4) Finitary informational distinctions of existence are made of or derived from Unbound Telesis and are made of or derived from finitary informational distinctions.

Since the universe is described as "supertautologically-closed" the Unbound Telesis of the universe is necessarily conserved.

All finitary informational distinctions of existence are therefore transformations of Unbound Telesis.

"Unbound Telesis" semantically means "consciousness". Unbound Telesis has no external cause, it is eternal and is the cause of it's own transformations, Unbound Telesis is therefore self-causal or self-deterministic or teleological, which syntactically means Unbound Telesis is consciousness.

From the perspective of the finitary informational distinctions of existence with that of the Unbound Telesis, that is, from the perspective of the Unbound Telesis transformations with that of the Unbound Telesis itself, you have "information cognition" or "infocognition"; a dual-aspect monism of reality responsible for universal evolution; Where the Unbound Telesis transformations are akin to the "Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language" or SCSPL.

Logical truth necessarily is isomorphic to empirical science, or by virtue of the identity of indiscernibles, Unbound Telesis is energy itself, as everything is made of energy, as energy is conserved, as energy cannot be created nor destroyed, as energy is transformed from one form to another, as vacuum energy is infinite, as forms of energy are polarizations of the vacuum energy, as thermodynamic entropy is equivalent to informational entropy (It can be seen that one may think of the thermodynamic entropy as Boltzmann's constant, divided by ln(2), times the number of yes/no questions that must be asked in order to determine the microstate of the system, given that we know the macrostate); Wherein the "Telic Principle" is the Law of Maximum Entropy Production. [4] [5]

This is a significant correction to the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe proposed by Christopher Langan.

Langan accidentally introduced a duality with Unbound Telesis on one side and SCSPL (Mind/Matter) on the other; By "Matter", Langan meant "forms of energy", which means that energy itself is missing from his reality theory. If someone were to propose that Unbound Telesis is not energy then (excluding non-logical axioms) energy would have to have been created. But this contradicts empirical science, which would falsify his reality theory. Further, he described the Telic Principle in phrases such as "self-utility", "maximize (local) utility", "deviation from generalized utility" which are vague if not meaningless.

If the correction holds, reality (UBT and SCSPL) comprises a quad-aspect monism with a fundamental dual-aspect UBT (consciousness = energy) and a superficial dual-aspect SCSPL (thought forms = energy forms) or better yet a tri-dual-aspect monism;

(1) UBT and SCSPL, where SCSPL is UBT finitary informational transformations; infocognition

(2) UBT (consciousness = energy) the self-causal ontological potential; cognition; topological containment

(3) SCSPL (thought forms = energy forms) the self-descriptive ontological active; information; predicative containment

## Axiomatic Postulate Proof

Spinoza's Ethics

http://frank.mtsu.edu/~rbombard/RB/Spinoza/ethica1.html

Substance is teleological

Spinoza is arguing for an ontological monism from Cartesian dualism; e.g. He claims the monistic substance or God is solely deterministic. The problem with that claim is that calling anything deterministic requires a dualistic or objective perspective (the observer is treated as separate from the deterministic phenomena he perceives) i.e. If God is deterministic, what external thing is God deterministic with respects? This of course is absurd for an ontological monism, as there is nothing external to God, and so God cannot be deterministic; God must be purely self-deterministic!; And self-determinism just so happens to be consciousness, or make God intrinsically teleological.

Further, Spinoza argues that because the ontological monism or God exists, there can be no other beings worthy of respect or reverence or adoration. i.e. He is arguing against all theistic notions of God, and that there cannot exist gods or angels merely because the ontological monism exists. This of course is pure fallacy, as monism no more disproves the existence of gods than it disproves the existence of mankind! And required in a monistic-pantheism perspective; any gods (and mankind) should naturally be characterized as the "person of the Divine".

## Scientific Fact Proof

An induction entirely derived from observation is a scientific fact. All scientific facts are inductions or derived from inductions. A single counter example falsifies a scientific fact. All scientific facts suffer from the problem of induction.

All proofs are deductions. An induction can be used as a premise in a deduction; In deduction, the truth value of the premises transfers to the conclusion.

For example;

Observational Premise (1); All men are mortals.

Observational Premise (2); Socrates is a man.

Deductive Conclusion; Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The first premise is an induction derived from observation which makes it a scientific fact. However we are not omniscient; Have any of us observed all men on earth to know that all of them are mortal? Could an immortal man be born of mortals? Do all men even live on earth such that they could be observed in the first place? Thus, the first premise "all men are mortals" suffers from the problem of induction and can be falsified by a single counter example which we cannot be absolutely sure does not exist.

The second premise is also an induction derived from observation, making it a scientific fact. Singular observations are based on the percieved semantic value of the observed; in this case, based on the definition of "man"; definition, or description, or predication, is itself a process of informational distinction, or generalization, or perceptual induction; where recognizing what an observed thing is, is cognition of identity. Singular observations can be falsified by finding a mistake in observation or a mistake in categorization which we cannot be absolutely sure does not exist.

The conclusion "Socrates is mortal" is a scientific fact, and is falsifiable through either one of the premises. Thus, a deduction (proof) using scientific facts as premises creates a new scientific fact.

Many people not knowing the rational foundation for the establishment of scientific fact often confuse unverified hypothesis and conjectural theory (theory derived from non-logical axioms) with scientific fact. Most if not all controversy involves such confusion.

energy is eternal

proof; ∑E = Ek+Ep

Scientific Fact (1); Conservation of energy; energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

energy cannot be created

ergo by time reversal symmetry it is a scientific fact that energy never was created

ergo energy cannot be created, never was created, energy exists and yet cannot be destroyed,

ergo it is a scientific fact that energy is eternal. Q.E.D.

energy is omnipresent

proof; E = (ω h)/2

Scientific Fact (2); Vacuum energy or zero point energy; there is an amount of energy equal to (hâ‹…Ď‰)/2 in every single point in space.

ergo it is a scientific fact that energy is everywhere present Q.E.D.

eternal and omnipresent energy is all-power-full

proof; P = ∫ ∇ E dv

Scientific Fact (3); Power is the transformation of energy over space and time.

All expressions of power are transformations of energy

ergo it is a scientific fact that eternal and omnipresent energy [S1 & S2] is all-power-full Q.E.D.

eternal and omnipresent energy is self-causal

proof;

Scientific Corollary (1); Every cause involves energy and every effect involves energy [S3]

ergo it is a scientific fact that eternal and omnipresent energy [S1 & S2] is self-causal or teleological Q.E.D.

eternal and omnipresent energy is self-descriptive

proof; S = -kBTr(ρ ln ρ)

Scientific Fact (4); Entropy is equal to the minimum amount of information needed (number of yes/no questions that need to be answered) in order to fully specify the microstate, given that we know the macrostate.

Describing is the act of making informational distinctions; in this case, collapsing the superposition creates information; endomorphic self-description.

ergo it is a scientific fact that eternal and omnipresent energy [S1 & S2] is self-descriptive. Q.E.D.

It is a scientific fact that the Divine exists.

Proof--It is a scientific fact that energy is eternal and omnipresent [S1 & S2]. It is a scientific fact that eternal and omnipresent energy is all-power-full, self-causal, and self-descriptive [S3, Sc1, & S4]. Eternal, omnipresent, all-power-full, self-causal, self-descriptive energy has the same properties as the Divine. By virtue of the identity of indiscernibles eternal, omnipresent, all-power-full, self-causal, self-descriptive energy is the Divine. Ergo it is a scientific fact that the Divine exists. Q.E.D.

If the Divine could or did destroy itself, it would not be eternal, in other words, it would not be Divine. Power is defined as the transformation of energy, not the destruction of energy. The inability to destroy itself does not contradict being all-power-full. Therefore the Divine cannot destroy itself.

To create and to lift both involve the transformation of energy. The Divine is an infinite energy and a rock which has finite form cannot exist in an infinite substantial state. Therefore the Divine cannot create a rock that it cannot lift.

Therefore the Divine is natural.

Note; Resolving the omnipotence paradox as a scientific fact demonstrates the scientific proof has increased or clarified our understanding of the Divine.

Define "physical";

By physical, does one mean 3-space local realism at no greater than the speed of light?

such that the following are non-physical (spiritual?);

(1) any spacial dimensions higher than 3

(2) non-locality and quantum entanglement

(3) superluminal speed and negative refractive index

Or by "physical" does one equivocate to mean "natural"?

The Divine is natural.

## Circumstantial Proof

A forensic scientist who testifies that ballistics proves the defendant's firearm killed the victim AND the defendant's fingerprint is on the trigger is an example of a circumstantial evidence proof.

Individually, one item of circumstantial evidence doesn't amount to much, but as a tier grouped together they allow one to indirectly conclude the existence of a fact.

Sodom Brimstone

With respects to the Divine, the spirits/angels/gods are the person of the Divine. That is simply how a monism/pantheism works. Even we are part of the Divine. So in a sense, we also are gods.

Anyway, the bible says; "and the gods said, let us make man in our image"

The Divine has no image. So, we cannot be made in the image of the Divine. But we can be made in the image of the gods. Another thing to point out is; functionally speaking, there is no difference between the gods and advanced extraterrestrials.

Locations identified on the satellite map on the west coast of the Dead Sea have millions of high purity (98% pure) sulfur balls with burn rings embedded in what looks like the ashen remains of cities. The picture on the bottom right is in the location identified on the map as Gomorrah.

Spectra Chem Analytical of New Zealand, and Galbrath Lab of Texas; Two independent laboratories have tested the sulfur balls and sulfur ash determining their composition.

At least three different groups have surveyed the sites taking samples, and two of those groups have created videos. Here is a video from one of them;

It should be noted;

(1) volcanic activity turns sulfur into a gas,

(2) meteoroids contain only small amounts of sulfur,

(3) geothermal activity creates sulfur of no more than 40% purity,

(4) a natural gas explosion wouldn't explain the purity of the sulfur balls, and

(5) bacteria wouldn't explain the burn rings on the sulfur balls nor the ashen remains.

An alternative possibility is that the pure sulfur fire balls were created and used as military munitions in warfare. However, there is no record of using such munitions in warfare. It should be noted that the cities are completely destroyed with even the structural material and stones having been turned into ash. It would take far less sulfur to simply kill the people; turning all of the structural material and stones into ash is militarily unfeasible.

Given that the pure sulfur fire balls and ashen remains are not known to be created by any volcanic, meteoric, geothermal, natural gas, or bacterial activity, and given that it is historically unprecedented to use pure sulfur fire balls as munitions and militarily unfeasible to turn all the structural material and stones of the cities into ash, and given that there are records claiming the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was by the hand of the person of the Divine, it therefore suggests the existence of the fact that this is the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah, the destruction of which was a teleological interaction of the spirits/angels/gods or person of the Divine with man.

## Theoretical Proof

Electromagnetic Matter

Matter is a transparent ['see through'] and refractive ['curving'] medium to longitudinal 'electromagnetic' radiation [they are kind of similar to sound pressure waves, but instead they are waves of an electric and magnetic nature, maybe we can think of them as electromagnetic radiation pressure waves].

There may be different kinds of longitudinal 'electromagnetic' radiation {photonic?{solely magnetic, or solely electric}, scalar waves, and neutrino oscillations}, but for now (given my gross ignorance of the topic) I will simply say "neutrino" (or I might use "N") to mean any kind of longitudinal 'electromagnetic' radiation. metaphor; I'm going to be speaking about the forest and the nature of trees generally, and not about the specifics of any one tree.

I predict that neutrinos induce an AC Kerr effect [the higher the intensity, the higher the refractive index induced].

If this is true, then the vacuum refractive index is a transcendent function of N radiation intensity.

It's a scientific fact (of my discovery) that the Earth besides the atmosphere is a converging N radiation Luneberg lens.

In other words, the vacuum refractive index necessarily changes according to altitude.

Light travels slower in higher refractive index i.e. TIME DILATION according to altitude!

Time dilation is measured by comparing differences in the radioactive decay rate; Experiments suggest that the stationary radioactive decay rate is indeed a function of N radiation intensity!

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

FYI, if material bodies (and their radiations and atmospheres) are a converging N radiation Luneberg lens, the vacuum refractive index becomes itself stratified as a converging Luneberg lens!; i.e. curvature of light in outer space around objects such as the Sun, solar system, galaxy, galaxy clusters etc.

We should be able to develop a matter theory solely in terms of 'electromagnetism'.

Let's review some of the modern innovators {and their contributions};

Paul Marmet {differential reference units}

It's important to note that the vacuum refractive index DEFINES the reference units. In other words, in any frame, the vacuum refractive index is a CONSTANT. So, how do we resolve the issue of something being superficially constant but fundamentally dynamic? The elegant solution, as Paul Marmet reveals, is to use differential reference units.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/gravity/index.html

Randel Mills {orbitosphere}

We will need to express the structure of matter; and to expand on Randel's orbitosphere in terms of electromagnetism, I claim the orbitosphere is a Kerr-induced self-focusing refraction curvature. One of the results being that as the vacuum refractive index increases, the Bohr radius shrinks [metaphor; imagine an electron orbiting an atom at a particular velocity and orbital frequency, if you slow the velocity (by increasing the refractive index) the orbit length would have to shrink to maintain the same orbital frequency] i.e. LENGTH CONTRACTION according to altitude (i.e. according to N radiation intensity).

So how do we get gravity?

Mass is a function of N radiation intensity (just as time dilation and length contraction is).

m = ∇ x Φ (-∇A)/(n0 ς)

ς, is the N radiation intensity, which I characterize as the free magnetic spin carrier density [webers per cubic meter].

As the N radiation intensity increases (and ∇ x Φ (-∇A)/(n0) is held constant), the mass of matter decreases. By the conservation of energy, the mass that is lost to matter is converted into kinetic energy! i.e. there is acceleration into an N radiation intensity gradient. i.e. gravity.

G ∝ ∇ς

Matter deeper into an N radiation intensity gradient, having less mass, naturally has greater sensitivity to transverse electromagnetic radiation, i.e. transverse electromagnetic radiation generated at higher altitude will be seen to blue shift when measured at lower altitude (and red shift in the reverse);

Δλ ∝ Δς/(∇ x A (-∇Φ))

Deluge Geology

The continental plates; (1) fit together completely on a much smaller Earth, (2) are granite whereas the oceanic crust is basalt, (3) are 20 times older than the oldest sections of the basalt. (4) and nowhere in the world are they (granite crust) being formed!

These prove that the Earth was smaller; the real question is; How?

Now, if the Earth was smaller, the oceanic waters would cover the Earth; yet land animal fossils are clear proof that much of the Earth was dry land, and so the only other place for the oceanic waters to be is in the atmosphere (such as the thermosphere) as a gas or plasma.

So, it is required from the foregoing that;

A: (1) the Earth was smaller, (2) the oceanic waters were in the atmosphere as a gas or plasma,

B: (3) the Earth is now larger, and (4) there was a global flood

If the oceanic waters were in the thermosphere as plasma or gas, Earth's atmosphere would be a larger converging N radiation Luneburg lens i.e. it would converge a higher N radiation into the mantle and core; shrinking the mantle and core by length contraction; producing a smaller earth!

With all this water falling to the Earth as liquid (and maybe ice too), it reduced the size of the converging N radiation Luneburg lens i.e. reduced the N radiation intensity of the mantle and core; which length expanding the mantle and core; braking the surface granite crust of the Earth, creating the continental plates.

The smaller Earth has a sharper arc relative to the continental plates. The continental plates (having characteristics of the sharper arc) buckle against the flatter arc of the expanded Earth; producing the mountain ranges.

With a greater N radiation intensity in the pre-flood Earth, there was a stronger electrical field strength; which means chemical bonds (such as in bone) were stronger and chemical reactions (such as in muscle) were more powerful; which no doubt allowed the existence of larger animals such as the giant sauropod dinosaurs!

That said, how could man, birds, and land animals have survived the deluge?

According to the bible (and over a hundred of other ancient sources), there was a great flood that destroyed the ancient world, for which, the gods spared some men and animals.

If you grant that my theory of physics is correct, then you must also grant that my theory of the expansion of the Earth is correct. And subsequently you must grant that the gods exist, such that they could have spared some men, otherwise, mankind and all the animals on land could not have possibly survived such an event.

Other interesting things to consider is that with the larger atmosphere and smaller earth;

(1) there would have been a stronger magnetic field at the surface of the earth

(2) the large atmosphere coupled to the stronger magnetic field would have created a plasma force field

(3) this plasma force field would block all cosmic radiation and reduce radiation signatures such as carbon 14

[admittedly I don't currently know how to explain the issue of the other radiological dating methods]

The dating methods that assumes constants in radiological (and even chemical) parameters throughout time are definitely skewed; Anyway, if the flood is associated with the last mass extinction event, the K-T iridium aerosols [presumably from meteoroids] and any possible volcanic ash would have acted like cloud condensation nuclei, cloud seeding the deluge.

Creative Days

If you look on this graph, you will see the biodiversity is equal at the flood event (marked by the blue line) and at the creation of Adam and Eve (marked by the yellow line).

Thus Noah had all the animals with him that were required to preserve the biodiversity.

The red line on the graph marks the end of the fifth day.

Fifth day

510 Ma the first fish, the jawless ostracoderms.

410 Ma the first fish with jaws, the acanthodians.

365 Ma the tetrapods.

350 Ma the dragonfly (the first flying creatures were insects).

340 Ma the amniotes.

And God went on to say: â€śLet the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.â€ť And God proceeded to create the great monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good. ... And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fifth day. (Genesis 1:20-23)

Surprisingly enough, the flying creatures in this verse is not birds (as many may have thought), rather, it is insects!

Sixth day

285 Ma the therapsids.

230 Ma the dinosaurs.

225 Ma the first true mammals, Gondwanadon tapani or Morganucodon watsoni.

150 Ma the first bird, Archaeopteryx.

And God went on to say: â€śLet the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.â€ť And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good. (Genesis 1:24, 25)

Neanderthal

The first reconstruction of a complete Neanderthal skeleton in 2005 has revealed more accurately the similarities and differences between us (far right) and them.

The reconstruction makes clear their larger, bell-like chest cavity and wider pelvis. They are physically larger (both taller and bigger than humans), with stronger muscles, larger nose hole and eye sockets, as well as a larger brain cavity. [6] Neanderthal dental enamel hypoplasia found in 75% of individuals and all those particularly aged, suggests they suffered from nutritional deficiencies.

Neanderthal were mostly carnivorous and they practiced cannibalism or ritual defleshing. [18] Neanderthals seemed to suffer a high frequency of fractures, especially common on the ribs, the femur, fibulae, spine, and skull; as well as from trauma such as stab wounds and blows to the head; suggesting a high level of physical violence in either hunting or their social affairs.

Humans existed before Neanderthal. It is a mystery to modern science as to why the Neanderthal (who may have been physically superior) became extinct when humans survived.

"Now it came about that when men started to grow in numbers on the surface of the ground and daughters were born to them, then the sons of God [angels] began to notice the daughters of men, that they were good-looking; and they went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose. ...they bore sons to them, they were the mighty ones who were of old, the men of fame. Consequently Jehovah saw that the badness of man was abundant in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. And Jehovah felt regrets that he had made men in the earth, and he felt hurt at his heart. So Jehovah said: â€śI am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, from man to domestic animal, to moving animal and to flying creature of the heavens, because I do regret that I have made them." (Genesis 6:1-2, 4-7)

"In the six hundredth year of Noahâ€™s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And the downpour upon the earth went on for forty days and forty nights." (Genesis 7:11-12)

â€śSecond month.â€ť Following the Exodus from Egypt, when Jehovah gave the Israelites the sacred calendar, this became the eighth month, known as Bul, corresponding to the latter half of October and first half of November. - New World Translation Footnote Genesis 7:11

The global flood which killed all but eight humans and all of the Neanderthal is said to have occurred on the same dating associated with the Festival of the Dead, for which the European calendar marks the celebrations of All Hollows Eve, and All Souls' Day.

## Pragmatic Proof

Waking Subtle, Vigilant Calming, Resolute Flow

'In God we have life, and move, and exist' - Paul quotes Epimenides regarding God's ontology (Acts 17:28)

This proof of God uses constructivist epistemology from the perspective of pragmatism.

You will know (and even experience) that God exists if this framework is true or if this understanding is practical (including psychological utility).

Understanding and experiencing the monistic pantheism (Brahman, the Divine) by connecting all of the knowledge traditions in the trinity;

 Subtle Shiva Jehovah Tao Qi Buddha God the Father energy consciousness Calming Vishnu Sophia Te Shen Dharma Logos the Son information thought-form Flow Brahma Elohim those bringing delight Jing Sangha Holy Spirit cybernetics sapients

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

Flow with respects your life; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autotelic

Staying calm, allows one to have clarity and gain understanding; functionally, it is Power; also called "virtue".

The calm I am referring to is not necessarily emotional calm, but a deep inner calm. I suppose you can call it the "observer". You can experience any emotion, while still having the inner calm or observer.

Being subtle is more advanced; the best thing I can do is point you to the Tao Te Ching; http://path-to-tao.info/tao_te_ching.html

None the less, silencing your mind will teach you to hear, see, and feel, what is otherwise invisible.

Regarding the theistic beings in the monistic pantheism (i.e. the person of the Divine);

spirits = angels = gods = advanced extraterrestrials = Brahma = Elohim ...

I suspect that the home world of the angels or "heaven" is in the dark matter.

The "Holy Spirit" is specifically those gods who have a mutualistic perspective towards us. Whereas the "demons" have a parasitic disposition towards us.

Since many people look up to Einstein with respects to science (and besides he expresses the idea quite well); I won't feel wrong in quoting him in this regards;

"the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds"

Let me put this in argument form; IF we understand "science as the study of the Divine", then as an act of religious devotion we want to study God or learn more about God all the more; such powerful emotions provoking productivity and innovation no doubt evolve or advance the field!

Since this is the most practical framework to understand the notion of God and of science; God does indeed exist! Q.E.D.