Video 9: Consequences of the G Proof

(63 minutes; 177 slides)

Short Synopsis of Video 9

Formally defines God using predicate logic. Discusses the impact of G Theory on science (G Theory is a New Cosmology within which all of science fits), atheism (no longer viable), religion (the Problem of Evil is partially resolved), psychotherapy (patient reports about God should not be dismissed as "delusions"), and on public education, law and government (God cannot be excluded on the basis of separation of church and state). Closing remarks are made on Wonder, Innocence and Upping Pascal's Wager.

Long Synopsis of Video 9

Based on the proof in Video 8 that there exists a unique phenomenon that is self-causing and omnipotent, this Video 9 discusses the consequences of that result.

First, a formal definition is given for God. After considering several alternative names (Feynman, Jehovah, Magdalene, Higgs, Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, Elohim, MadameCurie, SupremeBeing, Bhagavan, Providence, and God), God is chosen as most suitable. God is then formally defined by an equation that contains a proper description.

The impact of G Theory on science is discussed at length, as follows. First, the results of Version 1 and 2 of G Theory are compared, and it is explained that the resulting "God" is the same phenomenon, but that the two Versions treat absolute phenomena differently. Version 2 yields additional information about God (not reached by Version 1): God contains as its parts, and as its only parts, all absolute phenomena other than itself. Metaphorically, these parts are the "cells" in the body of God. — See our Technical Papers Page for more information on the differences between Versions 1 and 2.

Second, mathematics and science are carefully distinguished. It is explained why science taken as a whole, including all scientific observations, theories and universal constants, constitutes an interpretation (albeit an incomplete one) for G Theory that makes all the Axioms true. Hence, because of Soundness, Theorem T3 is true under the interpretation provided by the whole of science. G Theory is potentially falsifiable in the event that a new scientific observation is made, and/or a new scientific theory is validated, that makes any of the Axioms false.

Third, it is argued that G Theory provides a new cosmology for understanding science, wherein a unique, absolute, omnipotent phenomenon underlies all of science and causes all relative phenomena. New directions for science are suggested.

A challenge is presented to atheism: atheists have two alternatives for attempting to refute G Theory, one rational, the other irrational. It is explained that rational rejection requires either rejecting well established principles of mathematical logic, or "violating" Occam's Razor by believing in something highly unlikely, such as "parallel universes" in a so-called "multiverse" (which have never been observed and are unlikely to be observed). As for irrational rejection, three forms are discussed (avoid facing the truth, reject G Theory based on things unrelated to it, and punish the messenger), each of which is thoroughly unscientific. In the light of G Theory, the question is raised — Will atheism now become faith-based?

The impact of G Theory on religion is discussed. It is argued that the Problem of Evil is now partially resolved — we have proven God is omnipotent, but we have not yet proven God is Good or Loving, which means that if God is Good and Loving, then God lets evil exist, indeed God causes evil. While this seems paradoxical, suggestions are made that might resolve the paradox based on a novel way of distinguishing good and evil acts on the basis of time, joy, misery, reincarnation, karma, and God's time scale.

The impact of G Theory on psychotherapy is discussed in two respects. First, it is argued that patient reports of experiences with God should not be dismissed as "delusions" by atheist/agnostic psychiatrists and therapists, but rather should be given serious consideration. Second, the concept in mainstream-psychology that the human mind is a "software-like" phenomenon "running" on a "hardware-like" human brain that is "wired" in a particular way is challenged at its core. God causes all human thought, and yet the DSM fails to account for God playing any role in mental phenomena.

The impact of G Theory on public education, law and government are discussed, and it is explained that God, as proven by G Theory, belongs to church AND state (and science and everything else). Therefore, as with the multiplication facts (e.g. 3×5=15), God cannot be excluded from public schools or universities, or excluded from law or government, on the basis of separation of church and state.

Closing remarks are made on Wonder, Innocence and Upping Pascal's Wager.