Why I am a good proof that there is a God

[rational experiences]

If God is real then he should be clear to see am I right?

If you mean gods spirit is immaculate dark and clear not dark. Then yes gods highest spirit spatial heritage body of is the immaculate.

Existing.

God states only exist.

Men in science apply God satanisms. Set alight sleeping cold gas in stone then burn it give it life returned gods sacrificed then want it to be God highest clear unseen coldest.

Yet darkness is seen consciously by man.

Why men in theism satanisms lied as God is not dark.

The argument is God a dark man or a light man as Jesus.

So you ask do all men of any colour in DNA human do satanisms science?

Yes.

Did you all get life sacrificed all nations?

Yes.

That is because God owns no colour.

Now if you want electricity to time shift you wanted a tunnel to open between owned man's science electricity controlled earth body substance changed by man of science.

The status with no argument.

As everything man and machine exists present inside earths heavens.

As the thesis is direct to the want.

No matter what conning thesis of multi other explanations you use.

Actually.

 

[Suave]

This has been debunked multiple times. For example:-

The Genetic Code is not a synonym for the Bible Code
Does the genetic code reveal a Wow! signal?

".Hi, I'm one of the authors of the papers being discussed here (thanks for pointing out this discussion, Simone). Saying right off: I am not going to make war and press on changing anything in the wiki-article. I'll appreciate if the wiki-editors here will take my note into account; but if not - well, I can live with that, From the discussion here I see that the point is not whether our papers are ID or not (they are not; if that matters - I share entirely naturalistic worldview). Rather, the point is whether they are numerology or not. As I guess, this is a short way of saying that the data we described might be just the result of our arbitrary "juggling" until we found some "desired patterns". In our recent paper (mentioned here by the user Andy Shepp) we devote a good chunk of text to discussing this very point, so here I'll instead make a comparison between our study and the Bible Code (the comparison brought about by PZ Myers, I suppose). First - there is no any scientific hypothesis behind the Bible code (at least none that I've heard of. God? That's not a hypothesis, since the notion of God is notoriously ill-defined. Without such restriction, you are free to choose/invent any method you like for data analysis. In our case, we have the working hypothesis (that of Sagan and Crick & Orgel), and we attempt to develop analysis methodology appropriate for that hypothesis - the condition which greatly restricts the options (in particular, we are trying to follow similar basic logic that was used to construct Earth-made messages such as the Arecibo message, etc.). Second - the analogy with the Bible code is irrelevant simply from statistical standpoint. In one case the data (Bible) is millions of letters long - what a scope for opportunities. In another case, the data (genetic code) is only a few hundred bits. Next, the Bible is but one of many books ever written, while the genetic code is unique (with several minor variations). The Bible is written with a writing system which is itself completely arbitrary and is but one of many existing writing systems; in contrast, in our approach we do not rely in any way on arbitrary cultural codes, relying instead on the language of abstract logic and mathematics (yes, I know not everyone agrees that even mathematics might be useful for communication with another intelligent species; still, if you attempt to do that, first of all you'll most probalby resort to logic/mathematics, not Hebrew, right?). ----------- Of course, I by no means imply that our data unambiguously supports the hypothesis of Crick & Orgel. My point is that the data favors this hypothesis to the extent which makes it unreasonable to dismiss it as numerology just like the Bible code. As typically happens in such situations, the problem is that it is difficult to find an objective criterion for judging opinions and biases." - Maxim Makukov

Reference: Wikipedia Talk Panspermia Talkanspermia - Wikipedia

 

[Sheldon]

If God is real then he should be clear to see am I right?

That depends how god is being defined, if it defined as an unfalsifiable concept than no. However you believe a deity exists, so it is for you to define and evidence that claim.

Simply waving away requests for evidence with a meaningless platitude like "blindness of heart", is obviously a no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Muffled]

Indeed, it could be demons trying to lead one astray. I mean, that's the response I traditionally get.

I believe that is always a possibility which is why it is always good to know who is who. Jesus said you can tell because the devil always seeks to kill steal and destroy and he was a lair from the beginning. I believe that would go for his minions as well.

On the other hand I believe God is always God is always good. He loved us enough to die for us. He is forgiving and merciful and just. He is omniscient and omnipresent and I believe he doesn't allow anyone to take His place.

So when I called upon God I believe I got God because He would not allow a demon to misrepresent Him.

 

[Muffled]

Even if this was proof for God, it's not proof that it's your God. Like others have said, what if it's Krishna? Or Shiva? Or Kali? You can say they are false Gods, but what makes them any more real or fake than your God?

I believe my God is the truth, so the fact that Krishna says something that God says is not show reveals that Krishna is a phony. The other two I don't know much about but I suspect Hindus make gods out of concepts of aspects of God.

 

[Ashoka]

I believe my God is the truth, so the fact that Krishna says something that God says is not show reveals that Krishna is a phony. The other two I don't know much about but I suspect Hindus make gods out of concepts of aspects of God.

How do you know what your God says is true? You can point to the Bible, but I can point to my scriptures. What makes mine less real than yours?

The answer is, it's all about perspective and how you view things, and how you see God, or no God. I have had experiences that lead me to believe that Shiva is God, but that is personal to me and my experiences with Him. Your experiences are personal to you, too, but that doesn't make mine any less real.

 

[Muffled]

You have proven how little it takes for someone to convince themselves.

I believe I have a tendency to accept things as presented until there is proof they are not true. That is quite different from the skeptic who won't accept anything but an absolute sure thing and that is only because they are predisposed to think something is absolute.

 

[Muffled]

So you're saying that GOD speaks through you... but the very BEST that God could come up with for you to do is to post a bunch of completely unsubstantiated claims on a religious debate site?

I believe words have a great deal of power. After all they created the Universe.

 

[74x12]

That depends how god is being defined, if it defined as an unfalsifiable concept than no. However you believe a deity exists, so it is for you to define and evidence that claim.

Simply waving away requests for evidence with a meaningless platitude like "blindness of heart", is obviously a no true Scotsman fallacy.

You really don't understand the no true Scotsman fallacy or what I mean by blindness of heart. I already explained why it's not a no true Scotsman's fallacy but you persist with this disproven claim. It's unfortunate that you can't even make a proper rebuttal of valid points.

 

[ratiocinator]

I believe my God is the truth, so the fact that Krishna says something that God says is not show reveals that Krishna is a phony.

Begging the question.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I believe words have a great deal of power. After all they created the Universe.

How sad. The supposed Creator of the Universe has been reduced to communicating through you on the Religious Forums website and the best he can come up with for you to make a bunch of fantastical unsubstantiated claims that I could hear being spewed by hundreds of different residents of various mental hospitals. You'd think that such a powerful being would have something far more impressive to say. Makes him seem rather weak and pitiful to me.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe that is always a possibility which is why it is always good to know who is who. Jesus said you can tell because the devil always seeks to kill steal and destroy and he was a lair from the beginning. I believe that would go for his minions as well.

That seems like a self fulfilling prophecy to me, I mean to say that it is axiomatic that humans steal, destroy and lie, so inserting an unevidenced demon in there adds no explanatory powers to those behaviours at all?

Evolved mammals are fallible and imperfect, who knew?

 

[Azrael Antilla]

I believe first and foremost God is real because He abides in me.

My testimony to that affect should be enough but people need to know there are discernable affects that indicate god is present.

1. God speaks to me.
2. God gives me dreams and visons.
3. God heals my diseases.
4. God keeps me from sin.
5. God helps me to understand scripture
6. God speaks through me.

Why would your testimony be evidence of anything other than your imagination?

 

[Azrael Antilla]

The reason why you are good proof there is a God, is because our genetic code's creator has left this mathematical pattern in our genetic code conveying to me the symbol of an Egyptian triangle as well as the number 37 embedded in our genetic code.
Eight of the canonical amino acids can be sufficiently defined by the composition of their codon's first and second base nucleotides. The nucleon sum of these amino acids' side chains is 333 (=37 * 3 squared), the sun of their block nucleons (basic core structure) is 592 (=37 * 4 squared), and the sum of their total nucleons is 925 (=37 * 5 squared ). With 37 factored out, this results in 3 squared + 4 squared = 5 squared, which is representative of an Egyptian triangle.


I would not expect there to be a mathematical depiction of an Egyptian triangle stored within genetic coding if it were a naturally occurring phenomenon. The mathematical pattern of the number 37 being used as a key factor for conveying an Egyptian triangle might be related to the gematria value of 37 appearing in the Hebrew language of Genesis 1:1.

You shall have no gods before the creator of the heavens and earth, life's creator!

Babble.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

I believe words have a great deal of power. After all they created the Universe.

What words create God?

 

[Suave]

Babble.

No it's not! The notion of there being an Egyptian triangle depicted in our genetic code is based on the research work of Vladimir shCherbak and Maxim Makulov,; they published the details of how an Egyptian triangle is depicted in our genetic code in the scientific peer reviewed journal of Icarus. I seriously doubt that babble would pass muster to get published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Chris Davis' Science Blog.

 

[Sheldon]

No it's not! The notion of there being an Egyptian triangle depicted in our genetic code is based on the research work of Vladimir shCherbak and Maxim Makulov,; they published the details of how an Egyptian triangle is depicted in our genetic code in the scientific peer reviewed journal of Icarus. I seriously doubt that babble would pass muster to get published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Chris Davis' Science Blog.

LINK

"
The problem is: Since the dimensions of the grid and the number of letters skipped when reading were freely defined, the “researchers” most likely would have come up with different messages, had they chosen the width of the grid differently. Nobody read and verified relevant information that had not already been known.

Prothero and Callahan criticize the fact that the authors use the same subjective method to track down the presumed design signals in the genetic code. shCherbak and Makukov have also freely (meaning: arbitrarily) defined the logical criteria for dividing the amino acids into certain groups as well as the transformation and exchange rules according to which the “magic” sums appear. For example, if we would exchange A for T and G for C (rather than A for G and T for C) in Fig. 2, we would receive completely different sums and divisors. In other words, the authors get only results that they have already produced by their own rules.

The interpretation of start/stop codons as a symbol for numerical 0 is just as arbitrary. And of course, if we interpret start and stop codons as numerical 0 on metaphysical grounds, it is not surprising, that we “discover” a “privileged numerical system”, including 0. Garbage in, garbage out.

The choice of molecular weights (nucleon numbers) of side chains, basic structures and whole molecules as an object of investigation is also arbitrary. It is as arbitrary as the determination of a certain number of letters to be skipped in the Bible code, which is needed to find meaningful word combinations.

Design signals generated by targeted manipulations

There is another, more serious objection to shCherbak and Makukov’s method, which Prothero and Callahan do not mention: It works frequently only by a trick.

The amino acid proline does not fit into the scheme, so the authors modify it. To do so, they formally remove an H atom from the side chain of proline and transfer it to the secondary amino group (see Fig. 4). This makes proline the primary amino acid. The purpose of this operation is to formally “standardize” the basic structures of all amino acids, as the authors mention. This is because proline is the only secondary amino acid in the genetic code.

But “standardizing” means nothing other than purposefully changing facts to introduce the divisor 37 through the back door! In contrast to the other amino acids, the molecular weight of the proline basic structure (73) cannot be divided exactly by 37. This also applies, as discussed in Fig. 1, for the nucleon sum of the side chains. That undesirable fact only changes through the appropriate manipulation of numbers. Without it, the authors would never come up with the “magic” numbers 333 and 592. Strictly speaking, none of the examples in which the amino acid proline occurs, works “smoothly” in the sense of the authors.

To make matters worse, this formal H transfer would lead to an impossible molecule (see Fig. 4). The authors even implicitly admit this by stating that the H transfer in proline “can be simulated only in the mind of a recipient to achieve the array of amino acids with uniform structure. Such nucleon transfer thus appears artificial”. However, exactly this artificial operation, so the authors continue, “seems to be its destination: it protects the patterns from any natural explanation” (p. 3). In other words, targeted manipulations generate artifacts whose origin logically eludes any natural explanation! If that’s not a fatal circular argument, what then?"

"Incidentally, it is not surprising that in the (numerical) cosmos, which functions under certain rules and laws, certain order patterns like Egyptian triangles, golden triangles, Fibonacci numbers, ascending numerical sequences, prime numbers, etc. can be found which, as brute facts, neither allow an explanation nor even demand one."

Getting their research published in a peer reviewed journal is great, did it support the conclusion you are attaching to their work here? How many other peer reviewed sources have corroborated this? It took me a few seconds to find objections of bias in their work.

Here:

"In a word, the approach of shCherbak and Makukov is pure number mysticism. They could only read an intelligent pattern from those numbers after they inserted it into the genetic code by convenient operations, targeted manipulations and reckless interpretations. Therefore, we have to agree with Prothero and Callahan (p. 128), who summarize:

The result is a paper that, despite the impressive credentials of its authors and the soundness of the journal it was printed in, is essentially without substance."

Same link above...

 

[Suave]

LINK

"
The problem is: Since the dimensions of the grid and the number of letters skipped when reading were freely defined, the “researchers” most likely would have come up with different messages, had they chosen the width of the grid differently. Nobody read and verified relevant information that had not already been known.

Prothero and Callahan criticize the fact that the authors use the same subjective method to track down the presumed design signals in the genetic code. shCherbak and Makukov have also freely (meaning: arbitrarily) defined the logical criteria for dividing the amino acids into certain groups as well as the transformation and exchange rules according to which the “magic” sums appear. For example, if we would exchange A for T and G for C (rather than A for G and T for C) in Fig. 2, we would receive completely different sums and divisors. In other words, the authors get only results that they have already produced by their own rules.

The interpretation of start/stop codons as a symbol for numerical 0 is just as arbitrary. And of course, if we interpret start and stop codons as numerical 0 on metaphysical grounds, it is not surprising, that we “discover” a “privileged numerical system”, including 0. Garbage in, garbage out.

The choice of molecular weights (nucleon numbers) of side chains, basic structures and whole molecules as an object of investigation is also arbitrary. It is as arbitrary as the determination of a certain number of letters to be skipped in the Bible code, which is needed to find meaningful word combinations.

Design signals generated by targeted manipulations

There is another, more serious objection to shCherbak and Makukov’s method, which Prothero and Callahan do not mention: It works frequently only by a trick.

The amino acid proline does not fit into the scheme, so the authors modify it. To do so, they formally remove an H atom from the side chain of proline and transfer it to the secondary amino group (see Fig. 4). This makes proline the primary amino acid. The purpose of this operation is to formally “standardize” the basic structures of all amino acids, as the authors mention. This is because proline is the only secondary amino acid in the genetic code.

But “standardizing” means nothing other than purposefully changing facts to introduce the divisor 37 through the back door! In contrast to the other amino acids, the molecular weight of the proline basic structure (73) cannot be divided exactly by 37. This also applies, as discussed in Fig. 1, for the nucleon sum of the side chains. That undesirable fact only changes through the appropriate manipulation of numbers. Without it, the authors would never come up with the “magic” numbers 333 and 592. Strictly speaking, none of the examples in which the amino acid proline occurs, works “smoothly” in the sense of the authors.

To make matters worse, this formal H transfer would lead to an impossible molecule (see Fig. 4). The authors even implicitly admit this by stating that the H transfer in proline “can be simulated only in the mind of a recipient to achieve the array of amino acids with uniform structure. Such nucleon transfer thus appears artificial”. However, exactly this artificial operation, so the authors continue, “seems to be its destination: it protects the patterns from any natural explanation” (p. 3). In other words, targeted manipulations generate artifacts whose origin logically eludes any natural explanation! If that’s not a fatal circular argument, what then?"

"Incidentally, it is not surprising that in the (numerical) cosmos, which functions under certain rules and laws, certain order patterns like Egyptian triangles, golden triangles, Fibonacci numbers, ascending numerical sequences, prime numbers, etc. can be found which, as brute facts, neither allow an explanation nor even demand one."

Getting their research published in a peer reviewed journal is great, did it support the conclusion you are attaching to their work here? How many other peer reviewed sources have corroborated this? It took me a few seconds to find objections of bias in their work.

The activation key. "All arithmetical patterns considered further appear with the differentiation between blocks and chains in all 20 amino acids and with the subsequent transfer of one nucleon from side chain to block in proline (Fig. 2b). Proline is the only exception from the general structure of amino acids: it holds its side chain with two bonds and has one hydrogen less in its block. The mentioned transfer in proline “standardizes” its block nucleon number to 73 + 1 and reduces its chain nucleons to 42 – 1. In itself, the distinction between blocks and chains is purely formal: there is no stage in protein synthesis where amino acid side chains are detached from standard blocks. Therefore, there is no any natural reason for nucleon transfer in proline; it can be simulated only in the mind of a recipient to achieve the array of amino acids with uniform structure. Such nucleon transfer thus appears artificial. However, exactly this seems to be its destination: it protects the patterns from any natural explanation. Minimizing the chances for appealing to natural origin is a distinct concern in messaging of such kind, and this problem seems to be solved perfectly for the signal in the genetic code. Applied systematically without exceptions, the artificial transfer in proline enables holistic and arithmetically precise order in the code. Thus, it acts as an “activation key”. While nature deals with the actual proline which does not produce the signal in the code, an intelligent recipient easily finds the key and reads messages in arithmetical language" - Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim Makukov

 

[Sheldon]

The activation key. "All arithmetical patterns considered further appear with the differentiation between blocks and chains in all 20 amino acids and with the subsequent transfer of one nucleon from side chain to block in proline (Fig. 2b). Proline is the only exception from the general structure of amino acids: it holds its side chain with two bonds and has one hydrogen less in its block. The mentioned transfer in proline “standardizes” its block nucleon number to 73 + 1 and reduces its chain nucleons to 42 – 1. In itself, the distinction between blocks and chains is purely formal: there is no stage in protein synthesis where amino acid side chains are detached from standard blocks. Therefore, there is no any natural reason for nucleon transfer in proline; it can be simulated only in the mind of a recipient to achieve the array of amino acids with uniform structure. Such nucleon transfer thus appears artificial. However, exactly this seems to be its destination: it protects the patterns from any natural explanation. Minimizing the chances for appealing to natural origin is a distinct concern in messaging of such kind, and this problem seems to be solved perfectly for the signal in the genetic code. Applied systematically without exceptions, the artificial transfer in proline enables holistic and arithmetically precise order in the code. Thus, it acts as an “activation key”. While nature deals with the actual proline which does not produce the signal in the code, an intelligent recipient easily finds the key and reads messages in arithmetical language" - Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim Makukov

Isn't this what you already posted? Did you read the objections? Only your response was pretty quick.

 

[Suave]

The activation key. "All arithmetical patterns considered further appear with the differentiation between blocks and chains in all 20 amino acids and with the subsequent transfer of one nucleon from side chain to block in proline (Fig. 2b). Proline is the only exception from the general structure of amino acids: it holds its side chain with two bonds and has one hydrogen less in its block. The mentioned transfer in proline “standardizes” its block nucleon number to 73 + 1 and reduces its chain nucleons to 42 – 1. In itself, the distinction between blocks and chains is purely formal: there is no stage in protein synthesis where amino acid side chains are detached from standard blocks. Therefore, there is no any natural reason for nucleon transfer in proline; it can be simulated only in the mind of a recipient to achieve the array of amino acids with uniform structure. Such nucleon transfer thus appears artificial. However, exactly this seems to be its destination: it protects the patterns from any natural explanation. Minimizing the chances for appealing to natural origin is a distinct concern in messaging of such kind, and this problem seems to be solved perfectly for the signal in the genetic code. Applied systematically without exceptions, the artificial transfer in proline enables holistic and arithmetically precise order in the code. Thus, it acts as an “activation key”. While nature deals with the actual proline which does not produce the signal in the code, an intelligent recipient easily finds the key and reads messages in arithmetical language" - Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim Makukov

There is indeed a mark of intelligence left in our genetic code as evident by how the numeric and semantic message of 037 appears in our genetic code. Each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed .

“There is no plausible chemical logic to couple directly the triplets and the amino acids. In other words, the principles of chemistry where not the sought essence of the genetic code”

“The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.”

"The place-value decimal system represented through digital symmetry of the numbers divisible by prime number (PN 037). This arithmetical syntactic feature is an innate attribute of the genetic code. The PN 037 notation with a leading zero emphasizes zero's equal participation in the digital symmetry. Numbers written by identical digits are devised by PN 037*3=111 and 1+1+1=3 and appear regularly [from the figure: 037*6 =222 and 2+2+2=6, 037*9=333 and 3+3+3 =9, 037*4=444 and 4+4+4=12, 037*15=555 and 5+5+5=15, 037*18=666 and 6+6+6=18, 037*21=777 and 7+7+7 =21. 037*24 =888 and 8+8+8=24, 037*27=999 and 9+9+9=27.)"

"There is a complete set of information symbols utilizing the decimal syntax 111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777, 888, 999 in the genetic code. Each of these symbols consists uniformly of a carrier (balanced nucleons) and a meaning (the decimal syntax)."