User talk:The Nabi

God Lord God exists - and here is the proof

INTRODUCTION There might be other ways that faith is established in what is believed to exist, but this thesis has identified three distinct but overlapping ways that faith is established in what is believed to exist. And each of three ways only establish faith but does not in any way ascertain or guarantee the existence of that which is claimed to exist. This means there is an equal chance of believing that something exists as to believe that it does not exist regardless of whether what is believed to exist does exist indeed or not. And that is always true at the mention of God Lord God because there are some people who believe and some who do not believe in the existence of God Lord God. Those that believe are called believers and those who do not believe are called atheist. There is a third group of who believe that it is impossible to know for sure if God Lord God exists or not. Those people are called agnostics. And the agnostics claim that they do not find the evidence given by either the believers or the atheists convincing. Now if there should a definitive proof of the existence of God Lord God then that proof will make all those who learn about it to immediately and permanently become believers but at varying degrees. And such a proof will get the atheists to believe. Such a proof will also make the agnostics to know for sure that God Lord God exists. The proof will definitely exalt the faith of the believers in God Lord God who believed in God Lord God without a proof of his existence. This thesis defines faith as a belief in the existence of that which you have no reasoned proof of its existence. This is faith in its purest of the forms or faith based on faith itself. The Bible defines faith as the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of the realities though not beheld. . The only disadvantage of faith based on faith itself is that the believer cannot tell the difference of what exists in reality and what exists only in the imagination.

And this clearly calls for the need for faith to be justified or to be reasoned. This thesis calls faith based on reason as knowledge based faith. Here faith is established on what is believed to exist by knowledge and understanding of that which is believed to exist and not on anything else. And only knowledge based faith has the capacity to establish once for all if God Lord God exists or not. And for faith to be justified requires that which is believed to exist to pass a reliable existence test. And if the existence of anything is to be established beyond any reasonable doubt then what is believed to exist must pass at least one or all of the three tests of existence as defined by this thesis. This thesis as mentioned earlier has identified the three tests of existence or three ways of establishing faith in what is believed to exist, viz., existence by perception, existence by evidence and last but not least existence by self-evidence. And if God Lord God exists he must be perceptible to the senses.

'EXISTENCE OF GOD LORD GOD BY PERCEPTION'Bold text Here the establishment of faith in that which is believed to exist is through perception by the five senses. Faith is established in the existence of that which is believed to exist if that which is believed to exist can be perceptible to the senses. For the reader of this thesis to be sure of the existence of the author of this thesis, the reader needs to see the author’s face, hear the author’s voice, touch the author’s hand, smell the author’s feet and even taste the author’s kiss. Philosophy made a mission statement about existence by perception which says that to exist is to be perceived. Reading such a mission may lead one to believe that there is no other sure way of establishing faith in what is believed to exist besides perception. But the other sure way of establishing faith in what is believed to exist is through self-evidence. The reader of this thesis knows that the author of this exists or at least once existed without ever having to see and touch him. This is because the author’s existence is known to the reader by self-evidence. And God Lord God is also seen to exist by self-evidence as it will be discovered later in this thesis.

Now, it is known fact that our senses are not always reliable and clearly if our senses are as such then we cannot truly trust the mission statement as proposed by philosophy that to exist is to be perceived.  If the mission statement cannot be trusted then that calls for its revision.  This revision is necessary more so that existence by perception is not only the sure way of establishing faith in what is believed to exist as has already been demonstrated with existence by self-evidence.   If we are unable to show the existence of anything by perception we try to establish it by way of evidence or reason or argument or proof.  .  The evidence about the existence of that which is believed to exist can be given by an outside intervention or by that that which is believed to exist itself.  And when the evidence is given by that which is believed to exist itself then existence is said be by self-evidence.  But when the evidence is given by an outside intervention relative to that which is believed to exist then the existence is simply by evidence as already explained. 

God Lord God must exist if and only if he can be perceived. The thesis is in fact in agreement with the philosophical mission statement connecting existence with perception mentioned earlier. And the evidence about the perceivable God Lord God is found in the scriptures. It immediately follows that the scriptures are the definitive proof of the existence of God Lord God. Incidentally, the scriptures talk of a self-created God Lord God (Isaiah 43:10, Surah 2:117). And this thesis as mentioned earlier is based on the concept of self-creation. The adoption of the notion of self-creation has an added advantage in that it nullifies all other notions that are normally encountered and entertained in discussions pertaining to the existence of God Lord God like the infinite regression, the problem of evil or the devil, the reduction into the absurd, trinity and evolution. According to this thesis, if a notion nullifies another notion it means that the conception of such a notion or notions renders the nullified notion false or nonsensical. The claim by the thesis can be seen to be true if and only if the nullified notions, viz., the infinite regression, the problem of evil, the reduction into the absurd, trinity and evolution could subsequently be seen as nonsensical after reading this thesis. It has already been seen in this thesis that only a creative process explains better the origins of existence than an evolutionary process because the former process precedes the latter process as indicated earlier. The notion of self-creation, however, supports the notions of the creation and the infinite web of regression as it will be clearly seen in this thesis. And the notions of self-creation, creation and the infinite web of regression used interchangeably in this thesis point to the existence of one and only God Lord God in no partnership, real or imagined, with any other god.

Therefore, God Lord God exists in deed and in fact because God Lord God can be perceived as evidenced by the scriptures. It must always be borne in mind that the scriptures are the definitive proof of the existence of God Lord God for the believers, agnostics and the atheists as claimed by this thesis. And it must also be born in mind that this thesis is to turn all of mankind to know and understand and have faith in the existence of the one and only God Lord God who is the unmade designer and the first cause of everything as even proved by the scriptures. And if God Lord God can be perceived as the scriptures claim, then he can be shown to exist by evidence.

EXISTENCE OF GOD LORD GOD BY EVIDENCE Here the establishment of faith in what is believed to exist is through evidence by an outside intervention. What is believed to exist or not to exist or not sure to exist is God Lord God which the scriptures claim to be perceivable. If you cannot believe the scriptures you cannot see God Lord God as perceivable. And if you cannot believe God Lord God to be perceivable then you cannot believe the scriptures. This is almost like a Catch 22 scenario. This means if you want to see the existence of God Lord God you only need to look into and believe the scriptures. Faith is established in the existence of that which is believed to exist if that which is believed to exist can be perceptible to the mind eye. The mind eye is not easily fooled because it bases its faith on reason and reason only. In other words the mind eye must sees what is claimed to exist with the greatest of the ease. It is therefore, incumbent upon the author to furnish his reader with the clearest of the explanations that definitively show that God Lord God exists. It is ipso facto that once it is known that he exists as the self-created; then it would immediately be known how he came into existence. No wonder the scriptures say that when he decrees a matter he says to it ‘Be’ and it is. The scriptures in this thesis refer to all scriptures including the Koran and Bible as was noted before. This thesis takes all scriptures as factual truths from God Lord God. As it can be demonstrated with the case of the Koran and the Bible, the very existence of the Arabic, Jewish and Christians to this very day attests to the historicity of the scriptures. All this is saying is that the scriptures represents justified truths that all of mankind must come to accept. And all the scriptures give evidence about the existence of a self-created God Lord God. Clearly then the scriptures are the definitive proof of the existence of God Lord God as have been claimed over and over again in this thesis. If you cannot understand the scriptures are the definitive proof of the existence of God Lord God then the limit would not be in the explanation but the limit would be on the conception. Verbosity aside, all what this is saying is, you are dull if you cannot see the scriptures as the definitive proof of the existence of God Lord God. The scriptures in turn call those who do not believe in the existence of God Lord God as fools whilst it forbids the believers to call non-believers fools. This is a way that the scriptures serve their purpose of promoting peace amongst the sons of man - believers and non-believers alike. The scriptures also promote peace amongst all the believers of the different religions. Both the Koran and the Bible implore its followers to respect whatever somebody else calls god besides God Lord God lest that somebody would blaspheme against the one and only true God Lord God. Both books say that God Lord God created the heavens and earth in six days. This very fact means there is only one God Lord God because there is no separate heavens and earth for the Muslims, Jews and Christians but one earth for all mankind regardless of colour, nationality, creed, sex, religion or political beliefs. Armed with this information no one can ever be convinced by philosophy which claims that religions seem to cancel out or that religion is wrong. All the religions are good but it is the followers who are bad!

Existence by evidence is the hardest to proof because the evidence itself might be less convincing to the mind eye. For example we just seen that the scriptures in and by themselves are the definitive proof of the existence of God Lord God but this evidence is not convincing at all to some people like the agnostics and the atheists. The reason why this proof is not convincing to some is because this evidence seems to be faith based and not knowledge based. In his quest for the definitive proof of the existence of God Lord God man sought to furnish that proof from pure reason. And most of the proofs that were obtained from pure reason turned out not to be proofs but arguments. And as always arguments have criticisms. And it is these criticisms that weakened or failed all the arguments to have been the definitive proofs of the existence of God Lord God. There are many such arguments and the literature is fond of quoting only three perhaps because they hold a better chance of furnishing such a proof. The three are the design argument, the first cause argument and the ontological argument. The ontological argument is scripturally based so it is faith based proof and as such it cannot be expected to convince the agnostics and the atheists. Therefore only the remaining two arguments can furnish the definitive proof of the existence of God Lord God from pure reason that should convince both the agnostics and the aesthesis. These arguments and their conclusion are well documented in the literature therefore this thesis will not go over them again here but will only show the flaws of their so called criticisms or weaknesses and thereby turn all three arguments into definitive proofs of the existence of God Lord God. These weaknesses or criticisms are what philosophy calls problems. But problems are there to be solved and that is very reason why this thesis was written.

The problems facing both the design and the first cause argument will be discussed in this selfsame section of existence of God Lord God by evidence whilst the problems facing the ontological argument will be discussed in the next section under existence of God Lord God by self-evidence. But before doing that, this thesis next discusses the absurdity of the notion of the infinite regression. This thesis recommends the adoption of the notion of self-creation and the rejection of the notion of the infinite regression.

THE NOTION OF THE INFINITE REGRESSION The infinite regression is the philosophical problem that failed both the design and the first cause arguments to have been definitive proofs of the existence of God Lord God as the unmade designer and the first cause of everything. In other words the mind eye failed to see God Lord God as the unmade designer and the first cause of everything because of the philosophical problem of the infinite regression. The reason why the two arguments of design and first cause are failed by the same problem is because they are based on the same premise that what is made needs a maker. In the words of the premise then the design arguments can be thought to say what is designed needs a designer whilst the first cause argument can be thought to say what is caused needs a cause.

A premise is statement that is taken to be true and used to develop other ideas. So the statement that what is made needs a maker is so true that is not only irrefutable but is in fact axiomatic. The premise that what is made needs a maker is inviolable as a natural law in that it is always true every time. And clearly from such a robust premise we must arrive at a sound proof that is definitive about the existence of God Lord God. Unfortunately as it was mentioned earlier basing the definitive proof of existence of God Lord God on such a premise was thwarted by the problem of the infinite regression.

The problem of the infinite regression is encountered when it is desired to determine the origins of the maker of that which is made. By adhering strictly to the wording of the premise, it maybe supposed that such a maker was something made too. In that case the maker needs to have been made by another maker. And if that other maker is still thought to be made then that maker still needs to be made by yet another maker. This is like in the world of solipsism where so long as the maker is thought as something made then that given maker will always have a maker. In effect a pattern develops where a maker is made by another maker who in turn is made by another maker who is made by yet another maker going on and on like that in an infinite regression. An infinite regression is a never ending series going back in the time according to a book by Nigel Warburton called Philosophy – the Basics. What the notion of the infinite regression is suggesting is that the original maker of the maker of the made will forever remain unknown. And if you believe this you will never see God Lord God as self-created. But why should anyone put faith on the credibility and validity of a problem like the infinite regression that was created and derived from an erroneous supposition?

The problem of the infinite regression was encountered when it was supposed that the maker was made. Intuitively, a different problem must be encountered if the supposition was changed. A supposition is something that is thought to true without proof. It was taken without proof that the maker was made. And all the synonyms of made like created, designed or caused will also encounter the same problem of the infinite regression. But there exist virtually an infinite number of suppositions and a corresponding number of potential problems. It can even be supposed here in passing that the scriptures are not after all the definitive proof of the existence of God Lord God as claimed earlier in this thesis. But strictly speaking, the maker is made by God Lord God but born of the sons of man.

And as rightly demanded by common sense and experience, let it be supposed that the maker is born. He or she must be born of a father and mother. The father too of the maker has a father and a mother whom the maker calls paternal grand father and grand mother respectively. The mother too of the maker has a father and mother whom the maker calls maternal grand father and mother respectively. A pattern resembling an infinite web of regression has developed here where the numbers of parents of the maker increase as the origins of the maker is traced back in time. The pattern suggests that the maker was born of an infinitude of fathers and mothers. The infinite web of regression seemingly suggests, just like the infinite regression. that the original parents of the maker will forever remain unknown. And if you believe this you will never believe the scriptures when they claim that Adam and Eve are the original parents of the maker of the made. We now have reason to believe all the scriptures as credible and valid because they solved the problem what this thesis called the infinite web of regression.

It was intuitively claimed that a different problem will suffice when the supposition was changed. This truth of this claim has already been confirmed and demonstrated because we encounter the problem of the infinite regression if the maker is supposed to be made, but we encounter the problem of the infinite web of regression if the maker is supposed to be born. It is left as an academic exercise for the interested to search for other philosophical problems which could be encountered when the supposition is changed. The real problem was that of the infinite web of regression but luckily the scriptures came to our aid. The infinite regression was seen to pose no problem because it represents a flaw in our thinking process.

Not only is the infinite regression representative of a flaw in our thinking process, but the notion of the infinite regression does not reflect reality because there is no evidence of such a unending hierarchy of makers. In reality, there seems to be only two types of makers. Those who create with what already exists in nature and those who create with that which never existed in nature if the made has an actuality. But then again how is possible to create anything that has neither material nor spiritual form? A maker of a chair can make his or her chair out of wood, plastic, stone or metal. A chair maker represents a maker who creates with what already exist in nature. But what are the origins of the constituent materials that the chair maker can choose from? The interest now is not in the origins of the chair maker whom the thesis claimed to be Adam and Eve, but in the constituent materials that can be used to make the chair. Because these constituent materials have an actuality they may rightly be thought to be made by an outside intervention. If we fail to see an outside intervention or a number of them acting in concert, then we can rightly suppose that the constituent materials made themselves. This suggests definitely that the constituent materials self-created themselves if they came into being on their own accord. But this thesis can never under any circumstances even suppose that the constituent materials self-created themselves because self-creation is the prerogative of the one and only self-created God Lord God as can be reasoned from the scriptures.

The reality that the notion of the infinite regression can never blur is that there are only two types of makers in existence as it has been shown – God Lord God and the animal kingdom. The makers who creator with what already exists, namely, the animal kingdom and the creator that who create with that which never existed, namely, God Lord God. This is to say that God Lord God self-created himself and then created the heavens and the earth with the animal kingdom in which man is part and parcel of. The notion of self-creation says that God Lord God created himself whilst the notion of the infinitive regression seems to suggest blasphemously that God Lord God should be made or created or caused or designed by another god in an unending hierarchy of makers. The infinite regression would say that God Lord God was created by God Lord God who was created by God Lord God who was created by yet another God Lord God without end. The notion of self-creation would say that God Lord God self-created himself and then created everything else. And the notion of self-creation is supported by the scriptures where the notion of the infinite regression is not. The fact that the infinite regression is not supported by the scriptures proves its absurdity.

THE NOTION OF SELF-CREATION Self-creation is the coming into being without an outside intervention. The notion of self-creation implies a creator first comes into being and then creates everything else. In essence such a self-created creator is necessarily the unmade designer and the first cause of everything. The notion of self-creation definitively nullifies the idea of an ever increasing hierarchy of makers that is supported by the infinite regression by claiming that the ladder has only two rungs and not an infinitude of rungs as supposed by the infinite regression. The two steps of the ladder as proposed by the notion of self-creation are that of an unmade maker who thought, planned, designed and finally made all existence of the living and non-living. We have two things, namely, the made and the unmade. The infinite regression deceives us into thinking that the made has an infinite hierarchy of markers. It can therefore be concluded that the unborn or the unmade or the self-created God Lord God made the born maker who made that which is made from that which already exists. Whilst the notion of the infinite regression suggested that the origins of the maker will remain unknown the notion of self-creation refutes that because it claims the origins of the made or that which has either material or spiritual form has its origins with is an unmade maker(s). The blasphemous creed of trinity suggests a trinity of unmade makers of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The notion of the infinite regression must be discarded and that of self-creation be adopted and accepted because of its usefulness in explaining the origins of existence. On the other hand, the scriptures set the record straight concerning the notion of the infinite web of regression.

Whereas the notion of the infinite regression suggested an infinite hierarchy of makers, the notion of self-creation seems to suggest an infinitude of self-created makers. If it can be imagined that a god is a self-created being, then we can imagine that the constituents were made by their respective gods. The Koran refutes convincingly the possibility of the existence of more than one God Lord God. The Koran says if the heavens and earth represented a collaboration effort of gods then one of the gods, perhaps in a time of dispute, must come to take away his or her part of the creation of the heavens and earth. This is an assurance that there is god of the wood, god of the stone, god of the metal or god of the plastic that is used to make the chair. Both the Koran and the Bible claim a self-created God Lord God who created the heavens and the earth in six days. And from deductive reasoning it can be concluded that there exists the one and only God Lord God because there is no separate earth for the Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Therefore, God Lord God exists in deed and in fact as shown by pure reason who is the unmade designer and the first cause of everything as has always been claimed by the design and first cause arguments respectively.

To date God Lord God has passed two tests of existence, namely, existence by perception and existence by evidence. Let us finally end this thesis with that which is believed to exist giving existence about itself. Now if God Lord God exists he must be self-evident.

EXISTENCE OF GOD LORD GOD BY SELF-EVIDENCE Here the evidence about existence of that which is believed to exist is given by that which is believed to exist itself. The notion of existence by self-evidence nullifies the notion of the reduction to the absurd just like the notion of self-creation nullified the notion of the infinite regression. The problem of the reduction to the absurd is one of the problems that failed the mind eye to see the ontological argument as the definitive proof of the existence of God Lord God. And with the problem of the reduction to the absurd out of the way the mind eye sees clearly an existence of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and benevolent God Lord God. The weakness of the ontological argument is that it tends to define things into existence. This is clearly a weakness in that the listing of properties cannot in any way guarantee the existence of the claimed thing. Perhaps it was when philosophy was faced with these issues when it reckoned that existence is not a property. By simply saying it is a horse with one horn does not imply an existing unicorn in reality. And unicorns do not exist because they exist only in the imagination. The notion of the reduction to the absurd seems to blasphemously suggest that God Lord God can be possibly as real or as unreal as we make him to be. In other words God Lord God can be the work of our imagination as claimed by the problem of the reduction to the absurd.

That which is imaginary cannot give evidence about itself but only that which exists can be expected to give evidence about its existence. Only God Lord God can be expected to give evidence about himself and never the unicorn. God Lord God has hereby given evidence about himself in that there in no language, dead or alive, that has not got a name for God Lord God. The fact that the name of God Lord God is found in every language is the scientific proof of the existence of God Lord God. This proof is indeed scientific in that it is based on inductive reasoning. And if anyone is to wonder why that is so about the name of God Lord God that is found in every language, one needs to be reminded of the tower of Babel. The scriptures come once again to our aid to explain the origins the languages as it told us the origins of the maker of the made regardless where such maker was thought of as made or thought of as born.

Another problem that failed the ontological argument to have been the definitive proof of the existence of God Lord God is the problem of evil. Besides being omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, God Lord is said to be benevolent according to this argument. Benevolence is the capacity to show mercy. The strength of problem of evil suggests that even if God Lord God existed he cannot be benevolent given the existence of natural disasters like famine, earthquakes, diseases etc and man made disasters like violence, war, genocide etc. But this thesis claims that evil in the world is necessary to produce for us the likes of Mandela, Mother Teresa and Luther King etc. The problem of evil or the devil produces our heroes and heroines.

CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD LORD GOD Any one of these tests of existence was enough to have been the definitive proof of the existence of God Lord God by itself. But fortunately, this thesis has proven definitively the existence of God Lord God in that God Lord God has passed conclusively not one but two of the tests of existence, namely, existence by evidence and existence by self-evidence. God Lord God has virtually passed all the three tests of existence including perception. There are countless accounts in the scriptures which show God Lord God interacting with the sons of man. God Lord God gave Adam the commandment to name all the animals of the world. God Lord God gave Moses the law. God Lord God instructed Noah on how to construct his ark. The prophet Isaiah saw God Lord God. John saw God Lord God on the island of Patmos. Abraham ate dinner with God Lord God. Stephen saw God Lord God with the Messiah by his side. And man is still interacting with God Lord God today through their respective religions. Clearly Karl Marx was mistaken to take religion as an opiate to people’s mind.

Therefore, God Lord God exists because he passed successfully all the three tests of existence as set out in this thesis. This thesis has shown that even though God Lord God is predominately invincible like air to most people, he can yet still be seen by the naked eye. And when the eye failed to see God Lord God, this thesis clearly showed the existence of God Lord God to the mind eye using pure reason. And after the eye and the mind eye were shown the existence of God Lord God, God Lord God was seen in thesis coming out of invincibility and declaring by way of self-evidence that he exists in deed and in fact.

This ends the definitive proof of the existence of God Lord God. And may God Lord God (Isaiah 43:10, Surah 2:117) give you wisdom (Proverbs 8), faith (Hebrews 11) and happiness (Matthews 5); and believe in God Lord God the way that you believe in God Lord God and that is how you are going to see God Lord God (Zephaniah 2:11).

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hexagonal water may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 2008-03-17| accessdate=2011-10-18| url=http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/03/chem-lab-hexago/}}</ref><ref name="alabama">{{cite web| title=Drinking Water and Water Treatment Scams| publisher=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to Hexagonal water

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Epicgenius (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)