A Proof of God

Is there a God?  Certainly!  How else could any rational, perceptive person hope to explain Reality?!

Everyone needs god; everyone has a god. God may be secular or religious. For most persons the secular god is more strongly impressed; requires the most "faith"; and, is the least easily recognized for what it is; a restriction on the joys of Individualism and the freedom of one's own thoughts. 

The abomination is not that there is a belief in god; this belief, most often corrupted, is the symptom. The abomination is the extraordinary amount of faith required for that belief. 

To live maximally, every human being
            must know a god.

This god must not be anthropic
            . . . in any manner.

Knowing god must require no more than
            a diminishing minuscule of faith.

Can it be proven that a god, or gods, exist?; or, Can it be proven that said gods do not exist? Most likely, such questions have perplexed human beings from their beginnings to the present. It would seem from a perusal of the special interest factions, covering all the various degrees of interest, that a satisfactory answer is no more possible now than when the issues were first raised. Maybe not!

To begin: some definitions which will apply to this writing must be put in place. There are probably as many definitions of god, with and without capitalization, as there are for any other concept. The word god/God is so "loaded" with connotations that it won't be used, other than pejoratively. Instead, Oneness will refer to god/God; Oneness is a universal term that is found in most all religions; yet, it tends to have a more neutral, possibly, secular ring; therefore, raising less fanatical passions.

Oneness will be defined as that which creates Reality; a concept that, again, most religions and individuals can agree to agree upon. "That which creates" is intended to differ from "creator" which, for some, may connote anthropomorphic qualities. Nothing is known, in the evolution of Reality, to be further from what is defined as Oneness than is humankind. Oneness and human beings are at the extreme, opposing ends of Cosmic evolution. To ascribe any anthropomorphic qualities to the phenomenon of Oneness would be the quintessential, arrogant blaspheme.

And, what is it that was created by "that which creates"? Again, there are many words for many concepts that concern creation. Generally, each such word is similar; but, to avoid confusion and, possibly, varying connotations; rather than words such as: Universe, world, existence, Cosmos, perception, etc., etc., the word that will be used for that which has been created is . . . Reality.

Reality is defined as that which exists; meaning something, theoretically, that can be "gotten" to, observed, and/or logically perceived.

The question is begged for another definition; that of UnReality. UnReality is, quite simply, that which is not Reality. An example of UnReality would be Infinity. Infinity is defined, herein, as a limit which can be approached but can not be reached; Infinity is a quality that can neither be divided nor added to; and, Infinity is the only singularity; there are many guises of the singularity; though, by definition: There can be only one singularity. Interestingly, subtle theory indicates that many "near-Infinities" may be within Infinity. Thus, Infinity, as a singularity, is a fine definition for . . . Oneness.

UnReality, Infinity, and Oneness are congruent.

An exponential curve that continually approaches, half-way to a maximum or minimum value, will never reach either value. These unreachable values, zero/nothingness and the maximum value of speed, can be said to be, somewhat, analogous to Infinity.

Said definitions, herein, of god/God, Oneness, Reality, creator, UnReality, and Infinity are certainly not fully inclusive, nor exhaustive; however, some starting point must be selected. For those that have a need for nit-picking, the starting-point can always be tweaked later; without, I believe, changing the argument to any great extent. ("Nit-picking," as used herein, is considered a salutary undertaking and is not intended to be pejorative.)

So much for setting the stage; on with the show.

Kurt Godel [1906-1978], a confidant, peer, and colleague of Albert Einstein [1879-1955], is considered one of the preeminent mathematician/philosophers of the modern era. Godel, to the satisfaction of most world-class mathematicians and philosophers, established, fairly well, the credibility of proof. Godel, in 1930-31, with his paper on Incompleteness Theorem postulated that mathematical proof is not possible. This postulate, by Godel, has never been, seriously, challenged.

Mathematical logic is, ultimately, the foundation of both the disciplines of physics and philosophy . . . despite the protestations of many practitioners.  The only question Godel's postulation left remaining was that of whether the negative was possible of proof. That is: Can something be proven if it cannot be disproved? If the answer to this question is positive; and, it certainly appears that it is; this puts atheists in a difficult position that they have not been able to very successfully parry.

Proving that god/God does not exist can be, for good reason, as difficult as proving that god/God does exist.

According to Nagel and Newman, considered the preeminent authority on Godel's logical arguments, Godel did leave a bit of "wiggle" room; to wit:

"Godel's proof...does not mean...there are truths
which are...incapable of becoming known...

It does not mean...there are "ineluctable limits
to human reason."

 It does mean that...intellect...cannot be
fully formalized...and...new principles

...mathematical propositions which cannot be
established by...deduction...may...be
established by meta-mathematical reasoning.

It would be irresponsible to claim...
indemonstrable truths...by
meta-mathematical arguments
are based on...bare appeals to intuition."

Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman
Godel's Proof, 1958

Godel's Proof was published in 1931.  Godel was active and lived about 20 years after the above comments were published in 1958; he was never known to have refuted Nagel and Newman's above assessment of his position.

The metamorphosis of motion from Infinity to the phenomenon of matter is an example of meta-mathematics known as Unimetry. A detailed description of Unimetry, which concerns Pulsoids, is beyond the scope of this presentation.

A very strong argument can be made that Infinity is the only mathematical provable because of the very fact that Infinity, as the only singularity and phenomenon beyond Reality, can not be disproved!

In light of Godel, atheists must prove that Oneness is not at the cause of existence. The theologians relying only upon faith would seem to have the high ground refuting this argument; however, there can be little solace in winning by default.

The state of academia concerning proofs of any nature, let alone, the proof or disproof of Oneness, is tenuous at best. The academic disciplines of Science, Theology, and Philosophy have raised obfuscation to an art form. Their argot is so incomprehensible that none are any longer capable of sustained communication with one another; let alone with the general public. The situation continues to get worse; there is little effort, beyond tokenism, to change. So much the better to counter attacks from outsiders upon each discipline's logic . . . or lack thereof.

One discipline relies upon man-made gods; another of the disciplines relies upon gods of blind faith; and, the third discipline, philosophy, will take either, or any, position . . . and, at some point, equally defends them all. Now, which of these disciplines should be relied upon? It is suspected that the answer is much the same as the answer to the question: Which religion is the true religion? If only one religion can be the true religion; than, most likely . . . all are fallible.

In philosophy, two salient concepts, of quite basic, simple composition, that are diametrically opposed, continue to bedevil philosophers; these are the concepts of determinism and indeterminism. If philosophers cannot agree concerning these fundamental concepts on which most premises of their discipline are ultimately founded, there can be little merit to any other conclusions that they may champion . . . beyond exercises of the mind and general platitudes intended for the amusement of the unenlightened . . . and the authors thereof.

Time and enlightenment are not very kind to philosophic thought.

In physics, mathematics underlie all current theories. And, of course, mathematical theorems are the basis of mathematics. And, an acceptable theorem or paradigm is considered to be something that is very nearly provable. Yet, Godel destroyed the argument of mathematical proofs; and in so doing, he also undermined all the theories of physics.  And, also, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem destroyed the most promising school, of then current, philosophy.

Godel's iconoclasm with respect to unfrocking the cult of physics, is not all bad: as any world-class, theoretical astrophysicist is aware, and jealously guards from laymen: the entire foundation of current physics' theory is firmly planted within the metaphysical. No one within academe currently understands the "why" of Reality: in other words, the unification, or precedence, of: any of the fundamental forces, space, time, speed, and the circularly defined dimensions . . . or, the origin and destination of light . . . much less the etiology and prognosis of life.

Theology, perhaps, makes the least assailable argument. Theology blatantly offers no proofs, states that there can be none beyond human aberration, and insists on the worship of faith alone. A faith, incidentally, that is defined by those demanding it.

To minimize faith, whether secular or religious . . . is to maximize intelligence and . . . happiness.

Science, Theology, and Philosophy, which were once one, are now continuously diverging from one another . . . yet, they belong where they began . . . as a single discipline. After all, they are all concerned with exactly the same fundamental issues: Where have we come from?; Where are we going?; and, How should we comport in between? The high priests of each discipline are more concerned with control and sinecure than they are interested in Intelligent Inquiry; hubristic fault seems to lie equally with each discipline.

Currently, Science, Theology, and Philosophy are entirely predicated upon theories and axioms. The dictionary definitions of what a theory and an axiom are best reflects the current credible state of these primary academic disciplines. Theory is: speculation; an assumption based on limited information; conjecture; and guess; an axiom is: a self-evident principal; one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument.

Thus, the arguments contained, herein, concerning the questions of: Can it be proven that a god, or gods, exist?; or, Can it be proven that said gods do not exist?; are intended to succinctly dismiss the current disciplines of academia, and their endless ruminations, as a probable source for a definitive answer concerning the examination of the subject being discussed: A Proof of God. This dismissal is not, entirely, the fault of the individual academician; it is the fault of inbred collegial structure as well as the academicians' limited insight beyond that which is peer approved. A group approach is not conducive for the productive promotion of paradigm shifts.

However, the search for relevant answers should not end because of academia's dearth of alternative thinking beyond its standard models and paradigms. In fact, for those that are intuitive, an indication of where to seek the answers to the evolution of creation, may have, already, become apparent.

But first, at this point, as an aside: there is some importance for emphasizing that Reality is perpetual. Perpetual indicates a singularity; therefore, it is a synonym for the infinite . . . Infinity. It must be stated, without elaboration within this short discourse, that a finite Reality would moot any argument concerning Oneness. Thus, by substituting equivalent definitions, Reality and UnReality, are the ultimate duality; and, are reciprocals of one another . . . an apparent conundrum created by shared loci.

The current theory for a finite Reality is usually based upon the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe. This theory was first postulated by Abbé Lemaître [1894-1966] in 1927; it was subsequently developed by George Gamow [1904-1968]. It was not accepted as a standard paradigm until well into the latter half of the twentieth century.

The Big Bang theory has been accepted by academia only after the presentation of the poorest quality of logical proof as compared to any of science's other standard models. The Big Bang theory is an abomination and an absurdity that has been a tremendous setback for Intelligent Inquiry. In 1948, Sir Fred Hoyle, a world renown physicist, who, with many other eminent scientists continues to question the validity of the Big Bang theory, mirthfully and derisively gave the theory its name. A name which has withstood much effort at being changed to something with a more auspicious genesis.

The Big Bang theory has seen better days. With the advent of the Hubble Space Telescope the Big Bang theory no longer presents an unscalable obstacle to the recognition of an infinite Reality. An early conclusion derived from the Hubble Space Telescope's findings, based upon current standard model theory, is that the stars are older than the "Universe"; this interpretation of observed data and theory will not long endure.

Observed high-energy, Cosmic, background radiation; inexplicable gamma ray bursts, found seemingly without limit; the Pioneer anomaly; and, the acceleration of galactic recession has stunned the world-class community of theoretical astrophysicists . . . and, most all other academic, theoretical physicists as well. There is an overwhelming paucity of explanation, or any alternative hypotheses, beyond the occasional comment that a "new" physics may be a necessity. Standard paradigms not only don't suffice; they obfuscate the progress toward understanding Reality. Starting fifteen to twenty years ago there were occasional lone cries from academia, quickly muffled, that a "new" physics is required; today the rumbling has taken on the nature of a crescendo. The fun has just begun.

Only Black Hole theory can approach Big Bang theory in its blatant absurdity. Black Hole theory is derived from mathematical interpretations based upon the erroneous theory of General Relativity, which was formulated when little was known concerning the Cosmos. It can now be concluded, easily, that which Einstein was always well aware of . . . that the theory of General Relativity poorly represents the fundamentals of Reality. One only has to look at the absurdity of "action-at-a-distance"; the enigma of exotic dark-matter; accelerating, "flat," galactic expansion; and the sinusoidal nature of all fundamental phenomena to question the relevance of the theory of General Relativity . . . even the "fabric" of space-time is a "stretch."

Back to the questions at hand, now that the backdrop becomes more definitive; and, it begins to perk up with the addition of some color: Can it be proven that a god, or gods, exist?; or, Can it be proven that said gods do not exist?

Oneness being beyond Reality can not be known from within Reality; however, a better understanding of this unreachable singularity is possible by approaching its limit which is defined, simply, as beyond Reality. Thus, to approach the limit of Oneness, it is necessary to define, with much precision, Reality, which is what Oneness is not.

To define Reality in more detail: note that the fundamental constructs of everything within Reality, which are light and subatomic particles, are in perpetual motion; and, are associated with oscillations as described by sine curves.

Even ellipses, the curves of Gravity, which underlie Pulsoids, are generated by sine waves; a relationship that Einstein futilely pursued for most of his lifetime. A sine wave describes an oscillation; something that moves back and forth in a prescribed manner, which is set by the non-additive, indivisible nature of Infinity. Oscillation; manifested as sinusoidal: sliding, swinging and vibrating; is the hallmark of Reality . . . and the proof of Reality's genesis from Infinity.

The most fundamental questions: Why seminal motion?; and, What are the properties, or structure, of this motion?; are the concerns of the Unified Concept; and, to a lesser extent, the Equilibrium Theory of Reality, and Conceptual Relativity; all of which are, as with Unimetry, beyond the scope of this writing.

For now, it is enough to know that the salient details of the Unified Concept concern the creation of Pulsoids, or pulsing ellipsoids, which involve sinusoidal motion which ultimately evolves to matter of a solitonic nature; phenomena associated with exotic dark-matter; and, subsequent gravitational force. Also, the structure of Pulsoids establishes a proof of "one" which removes the major difficulty required for mathematical proof as postulated by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

The discipline that studies the structure of Pulsoids, and the internal structure of light is referred to as Unimetry. Unimetry demonstrates that the critical coalescence of Pulsoids produces four Phorbs, which consist of three solitons each. The formation of Phorbs is the essence of exotic dark-matter and the genesis of the "compression" that underlies the gravitational effect, which culminates with the formation of . . . atoms, which manifests as the phenomena of quasars and gamma ray bursts.

The Equilibrium Theory of Reality describes a repetitious process of coalescence, propagation, compression, and dissipation, which are the perpetual processes which sustain the perpetuity of Reality.

Conceptual Relativity relates to the oscillating actions of the twelve solitonic constructs of Pulsoids.

So, now! Reality is motion; therefore, UnReality, Infinity, and Oneness are motionlessness; otherwise, they would be Reality. And, motionlessness is no different than the maximum conceivable speed; because, motionlessness as an absolute, or a singularity, must be . . . Infinity. This duality of motionlessness and maximal speed may appear as being counterintuitive for those without a strong mathematical background concerning the nature of Infinity's singularity and dual locus. There is only one singularity . . . or, one Oneness . . . or, one Infinity; if there is an approachable, but unreachable, limit at each extreme of speed than those limits must be congruent.

Thus, this congruency explains the structural duality of gravitational action from the apparent domains of the infinite as well as the infinitesimal.

And, thus, it follows that Reality's limits are determined by speed. The slower the speed, the more immense is the perception of Reality. Reality is relativistic. Humans are subjected to speeds that are, Cosmically, considered very slow; and thus, humans perceive an immense Cosmos. Earth rotates at about 1,000 miles per hour at the equator. This rotation is one of the slowest motions that humans are subjected to during their Cosmic travels. The Earth rotates in one direction; moves about the sun in another direction; the Sun moves about the Milky Way, in yet another direction; and, the Milky Way is moving with its local cluster of galaxies, and so on. Each movement is progressively and exponentially more rapid.

And, it must not be overlooked that whatever speeds are found in the Cosmos, there are similar speeds within the atoms and their solitonic Phorbs. For that which can ride a light wave, the Cosmos appears considerably smaller than for the lone person, at night, standing atop a mountain, contemplating the stars. And, what is the size of the Cosmos for the oscillating solitons, within a Phorb, that are moving at speeds of light, and beyond, within an atom within a molecule within a cell within a mite that rides the gnat on the mountain-top observer who is contemplating the vastness of intergalactic space?

The Cosmic and subatomic environment that emanates from Oneness consists of relativistic oscillations of all manner, at once, everywhere . . . omnipresence.

The reader, hopefully, gradually, has been moving toward an understanding of the vast and minuscule domain of Reality; the domain of motion from near motionlessness to motion near that of infinite speeds. Speeds above that of light, which many scientists, including Einstein, have been well aware of since the 1930's, are within the domain of hyperReality. HyperReality, a realm within Reality, accounts for most non-local phenomena which defies explanation when utilizing the concepts of conventional paradigms. An understanding of the Cosmos, the total environment of human beings, requires a paradigm shift in scientific, theological, and philosophical awareness as it is now perceived.

The essence of speed, beginning with the Unified Concept, goes through many transformations which are the subject of the Equilibrium Theory of Reality, which is an application of Conceptual Relativity.

As these thoughts instill an essence of understanding Reality, Oneness is being defined, also, as best it can. The locus of Oneness is defined as Reality's approachable, unreachable limit. And thus, in conclusion . . . the proof as originally sought . . . as it is . . . has been laid out.

To prove Oneness, a theory must first prove its reciprocal . . . Reality. To prove Reality a theory must begin with utmost simplicity, a motion; and then, demonstrate that the simplicity, of that motion, contains all the complexities as found within Reality.

The argument to prove Oneness is, of necessity, circular. Only indirectly, by going around, and around, in great detail, can that which cannot be proven give up some of its identity. By knowing more of what something is not, is knowing ever more about what something unknowable is.

Never, to the last argument, can Reality, or its alter ego UnReality, be known; however, it is possible to know enough of UnReality that may be required, from time-to-time, to modify the behavior of daily living so as to maximize the potential of happiness within our environment. Little else matters. What, of importance, does matter is that: Intelligent Inquiry universally blossoms for its own sake; as opposed to the oppression of massive, blind faith which is most often postulated by fundamentalists of all stripes . . . those promoting secular faith as well as religious faith.

The goal of intelligence is one with A Proof of God, which is to minimalize a reliance upon faith. Faith is defined as that which is not supported by Intelligent Inquiry, philosophic logic, scientific method, or observation.

As Oneness is understood, there is no reasonable cause for the crutch and control of fundamentalist concepts requiring a faith concerning gods of anthropomorphic derivation.

Oneness is without the signature of human beings . . . consciousness . . . and design.

As an understanding of Oneness crystallizes, faith diminishes to a modicum. A belief requiring an abundance of faith is the abomination; not the subject of that belief . . . god/God. By definition there must be a creator if there is a creation; and Reality certainly is continually undergoing creation. Oneness, which is non-anthropic, preordains Reality.

To maximize Individualism and the freedom of one's own thoughts and actions, which is defined as happiness . . . Oneness must be known and understood without the requirement of an abundance of faith. Secular faith, a belief in academe's gods of physics, is an aid to understanding that soon impresses, as a weakness, that which it was intended to support . . . an understanding of Reality.

Again, it is important, for the general welfare of all life that Science, Theology, and Philosophy are one with each other. This unification requires an understanding of the concepts of: the Equilibrium Theory of Reality; Conceptual Relativity; and, for those who are technically minded, the Unified Concept, which bridges Reality and UnReality.

Such is Conceptualism.

- Brunardot
May 16, 1999


Revision inspired by:
- M. A. Velkova Piskova
July 13, 2000