The Physics of God as Seen in Reflection - Proof of God as Verified by Physics

As I said in the two original postings on this subject: We can only see God in reflection. If you look at your image in a mirror, does it tell the entire story of you, or do we need you to fill us in on who that person is by the things you say and do? God is seen in image. We need Him to relate His story to us. Thus, the entire reason for the image.

Confucius "I hear and I forget. I see and I learn. I do and I understand."

This is a story that God tells. He doesn't just tell us, He places us as characters in the story. The beginning and the end are set, as are the plot points in between. Paradoxically, He gives us the opportunity to perform our own unique part in the rendering of the story. Like a symphony written by a master, we are the musicians. Our performance depends on our knowledge of music theory, our skills developed over time and our attention to the notes on the page.

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

You are only deceiving yourself.

You should have read my post a little more carefully.

Notably, the last sentence!

FYI Science is based on defining limitations. How can one define the creator? An entity of infinity!

i think you are arguing TAG in some weird way.

god is outside of our universe and we cant even fathom it.

so why even argue for it if it's outside of our understanding?

you gain nothing.

edit: it's very arrogant to say we are the perfect image of god. even tho we dont know what god is. that's how emperors and kings got into power. fortunately, no one buys that argument anymore.

Please quote me directly. If you want to put words in my mouth, expect me to show your deception.

Here is what I said:

"1. It must be different. An exact copy is only a perfect copy. God is one. He cannot be two or He creates Himself. "

We are imperfection compared to God. The image cannot be an accurate representation of the original. Please read the entire post before trying to call me a liar or a deceiver.

If I misunderstand, I apologize.

Originally posted by vjr1113
i think you are arguing TAG in some weird way.

god is outside of our universe and we cant even fathom it.

so why even argue for it if it's outside of our understanding?

you gain nothing.

edit: it's very arrogant to say we are the perfect image of god. even tho we dont know what god is. that's how emperors and kings got into power. fortunately, no one buys that argument anymore.

edit on 9-7-2011 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)

reply to post by SuperiorEd


i guess i misunderstood.

even so, we cant understand god, so in a way you will be right. but the basis of your argument comes from the bible that reads "god created us in his image" or something like that. problem is that man wrote that verse. see where im going?

i could say zeus created us in his image, and i would be just as correct as you.

"...or something like that" is not a platform. To know, we need to be sure. Man had to write that verse. The Bible is God's word, not ours. It is the reflection of Christ who is the living word. You see the Bible in mans image and you are correct. Christ is the fulfillment of this Word as the living embodiment of God here in this world. God's incarnation into this reality is the astonishing marvel of all creation. He lived a life of weakness by taking on the human form in all aspects of the trinity, just like us. He conquered this world by living up to His own expectations by observing the law of love to the letter. Not only this, but He promises to fulfill every letter of the Bible, as the Living Word, before our final judgment comes and this image is dissolved.

2 Peter 3:10

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

You can dismiss Gods word in ignorance as "Something like that." This will not change what will happen. No amount of running will get you away from this truth. It will meet you wherever you are. Now that you know this truth, observe it as true as you live the next few months of your life. God will be there reminding you.

His desire is to have your spirit return to Him. He loves you. If you oppose Him, He opposes you to protect those who embrace love for others. Remember, God is one of the others too. Humble yourself before Him and this love is free to you. He can change your heart of stone to a heart of flesh that can feel His peace and joy. He gives us MORE grace. This is unmerited favor. We can do nothing to merit it apart from love.

James 4

4 You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. 5 Or do you think Scripture says without reason that he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us? 6 But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:

“God opposes the proud
but shows favor to the humble.”

Originally posted by vjr1113
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

i guess i misunderstood.

even so, we cant understand god, so in a way you will be right. but the basis of your argument comes from the bible that reads "god created us in his image" or something like that. problem is that man wrote that verse. see where im going?

i could say zeus created us in his image, and i would be just as correct as you.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


no

man wrote the bible. man wrote the islamic bible, man wrote the muslim bible.

it's as simple as that.

bible verses cannot prove the bible.

its like arguing 2+2=2.

no.

Can I argue 1+1=3 ? I can. The simple fact is, you miss the point if you can only see from a blinded perspective of bias against truth. This world is not always what you think you see. Our concrete reasoning says that 1+1=2. God's reasoning says that 1+1=3. That means that your 2+2=6. It could even mean that 2+2=7 or 8. As I think about it, it could even be more. It all depends on your perspective. Stop here and see if you can figure God's reasoning.




ANSWER:
One man and one woman = a Mother, Father and Child. (3 from two) God can do the impossible. 1+1=3 or more. God is not limited to your reasoning of Him. Why limit your reasoning to the deceptive nature of this material world? Trust God instead.

All those horrible news stories on the Drudge Report are all produced by the ground you are choosing to stand on. Instead, stand for something on higher ground where God holds you in His arms of love. This world is passing away. Fight for something that will last.

Originally posted by vjr1113
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

no

man wrote the bible. man wrote the islamic bible, man wrote the muslim bible.

it's as simple as that.

bible verses cannot prove the bible.

its like arguing 2+2=2.

no.

edit on 9-7-2011 by vjr1113 because: no

reply to post by SuperiorEd


thats cool dude, your beliefs are true because your god can do all.

everyone has a right to their beliefs.

But are we savvy consumers in the marketplace of ideas? You can get ripped off if you are not careful...even by the religious? The best way is the narrow path.

Matthew 7:13-14

13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Originally posted by vjr1113
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

thats cool dude, your beliefs are true because your god can do all.

everyone has a right to their beliefs.

If god created us in his image he must be partly homosexual.

Because there are homosexuals..

reply to post by SuperiorEd


My chief objection is your theme that interfaces modern scientific ideas to that of ancient manuscripts comprising the bible. Doing so--from my point of view--arrogates these ancient authors' viewpoints by attempting to map an understanding of the world & heavens to that of modern society. For instance, should we deduce that Moses had waves, particles, & the Uncertainty Principle in mind when he authored the Pentateuch? I think not. The scientific understanding of ancient Jews & Gentiles were much more parochial--which is not to suggest that ancient Man was not clever or observant. Despite this, I don't find distinctive language in the bible such that modern scientific correlations may be easily assumed or deduced from the bible.

If nothing else I think it's mistaken to interpret the bible from the perspective of one's era & culture rather than that of its authors, e.g. God as verified by physics. The books of the bible reflect their authors' time & understanding of the world & heavens--not that of 21st century Man. Moreover if frames of reference & perspective are to have application in this discussion, then why not interpret the bible according to each author's points of view according to his or her own culture & time? I ask this question because systematic theology (and your threads on this topic strike me as a treatise of Christian theology) became schismatic in proportion to changes in culture & technological/scientific advances with time; hence, Gnosticism, Catholocism, the Reformation, Calvinism, et cetera. Schisms in Jewish orthodoxy are even detectable in the New Testament: enter Sadducees & Pharisees. The underlying effect: theological inconsistencies that proceed further from each author's culture & time.

I don't agree that Genesis 1:27 (version NIV) parses with the literalism you've expressed. It's not a point of "head bumping" contention per se, but I don't see it.

As best I can tell, "in his own image" is a prepositional phrase modifying man. The follow-on "in the image of God he created him" seems much more like a literary style reflective of that time period & found in other passages & books of the bible. Beyond this I don't read "in" with such literalism. If there's internal evidence that conclusively demonstrates otherwise, I'm presently unfamiliar with it.

The piece I was least clear on concerned your use of the excluded middle; and it's not that I necessarily disagreed with your logical formalism, but rather that I'm unclear how you are applying this principle & its relationship to the notion of the Trinity.

As a preliminary, I will explain how I understand the principle of the excluded middle, after which it might be apparent to you where my point of confusion arises.

proposition (X): God is outside the created material world.
proposition's negation (not X): God is not outside the created material world

compound form: God is outside the created material world or God is not outside the created material world (representative of an excluded middle form as I understand the principle)

The points I'm uncertain about concern whether you mean this inclusively or exclusively. I'm inclined to think that the correct rule is "inclusive," but to clear up this uncertainty of mine, I figure it's just easier to ask rather than presume. Next, it's not clear to me what the relationship is between this excluded middle & the Trinity. Specifically, "X or not X" (the excluded middle) in relation to the Trinity.

As a sidenote, I'm not suggesting that it's necessarily bad to explore ideas. In terms of religion, however, my chief gripes center on theological inconsistencies & efforts to ascribe modern scientific ideas to that of ancient authors' understanding of their environment. But beyond that, thanks for posting your viewpoints & take it easy.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
I've always wondered, if God created man in his own image then does God have nipples? Why would God have nipples?

if God created man in his own image..

...why aren't we invisible?

First you need to understand what the meaning of image is in it's original language.

The word for image is צלם, and said, tselem. As in, Genesis 1:27

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

The word tselem does not mean we "look" like God because God is a spirit (Wind) Tselem means "shadow'.

We function like God on a small scale. Let's also not forget that it says "in his own image", it doesn't say we were created with the same power or attributes as God.

reply to post by Axebo

My chief objection is your theme that interfaces modern scientific ideas to that of ancient manuscripts comprising the bible. Doing so--from my point of view--arrogates these ancient authors' viewpoints by attempting to map an understanding of the world & heavens to that of modern society. For instance, should we deduce that Moses had waves, particles, & the Uncertainty Principle in mind when he authored the Pentateuch? I think not. The scientific understanding of ancient Jews & Gentiles were much more parochial--which is not to suggest that ancient Man was not clever or observant. Despite this, I don't find distinctive language in the bible such that modern scientific correlations may be easily assumed or deduced from the bible.

We cannot say, on the one hand, that God created the universe but lacks the physics to pull it off. If science can describe physics, then this is a rough estimation of what God is capable of if He is the one responsible. If God created reality and gave us His word, then we must assume He was speaking at a higher intelligence level than what we perceive as our basis of definition. This does not transpose the ancient meaning to modern. This transposes our ancient world view to realism. This assumes that God is sufficiently intelligent enough to speak to all generations and still get technical within this framework. This assumes that our modern understanding is still insufficient to understand the Bible. Moses was speaking what God dictated to us in this day and age and every day and age. We are here in a world of robots, artificial realities and the beginnings of the same science it takes to create a reality similar to the much advance version that God created. So, yes. We must assume that Moses was being the hand of God when writing the Bible. This is yet the best evidence of all of the Bible's claim to be the Word of a Creator God.

If nothing else I think it's mistaken to interpret the bible from the perspective of one's era & culture rather than that of its authors, e.g. God as verified by physics. The books of the bible reflect their authors' time & understanding of the world & heavens--not that of 21st century Man. Moreover if frames of reference & perspective are to have application in this discussion, then why not interpret the bible according to each author's points of view according to his or her own culture & time? I ask this question because systematic theology (and your threads on this topic strike me as a treatise of Christian theology) became schismatic in proportion to changes in culture & technological/scientific advances with time; hence, Gnosticism, Catholocism, the Reformation, Calvinism, et cetera. Schisms in Jewish orthodoxy are even detectable in the New Testament: enter Sadducees & Pharisees. The underlying effect: theological inconsistencies that proceed further from each author's culture & time.

Make sure you are reading the posts carefully. The Bible reflects, as I said before, the inspiration of the creator God to every generation, including the next 1000 generations. Theology is perspective. Much of theology assumes that contradictory truths will be resolved by correct perspective. We are fast approaching a day when the Bible's seemingly contradictory truths are resolving by the unfolding of time and the events of history. Science is giving us the ability to get a grip on what the Bible is actually telling us. All of our misinterpretation of the Bible is cleared up as we grow up as a species and begin to put God into proper context to physics, science and behavioral sciences. In other words, the Bible is coming into focus to our less than agile minds. As we are burned by the fire of choice, we come again and again back to the words of wisdom in the Bible. It is always true and fresh to the current age.

Truth is on a pendulum. It swings from ignorance to insight. Science cannot rectify creation apart form consciousness. This is the missing factor in the equation that unifies our understanding. We will discover this as we are ready. The layers of the Bible onion will keep peeling back to reveal the sweet meaning inside.

I don't agree that Genesis 1:27 (version NIV) parses with the literalism you've expressed. It's not a point of "head bumping" contention per se, but I don't see it.

Like I said, it is perspective. God is the master of the word and meaning. We can only realize what He reveals by the perspective He provides. He created this image by His Word, not ours. Within the context of the rest of what we know to be true of physics, an image is the best we can do to describe energy and information in motion. A computer is precisely this for us. It is the best analogy we have. Binary ones and zeros are used to program information into form and perspective through mathematics and our own consciousness. How long before we step into our virtual world of created reality? We can only limit God in His ability by our own weak perspective. We say, "Surly God is not capable of this much detail." I say yes, He is this and more.

As best I can tell, "in his own image" is a prepositional phrase modifying man. The follow-on "in the image of God he created him" seems much more like a literary style reflective of that time period & found in other passages & books of the bible. Beyond this I don't read "in" with such literalism. If there's internal evidence that conclusively demonstrates otherwise, I'm presently unfamiliar with it.

Notice how carefully the words are selected.

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them; Why did He say it twice?

The piece I was least clear on concerned your use of the excluded middle; and it's not that I necessarily disagreed with your logical formalism, but rather that I'm unclear how you are applying this principle & its relationship to the notion of the Trinity.

This speaks to the rift in theology between those who say that Jesus was God and those who say He was just a man. This also speaks to those who say God is in three persons. There is no distinction when we understand the process of creation and the relationship of our three part nature to His. We are one person with three natures to God. God is one person with three natures to us. We are a reflection of Him. Thus, we are God's image. We are also in the image God made. This is why He says it twice. Put God on one side of the trinity. Put yourself on the other side of the trinity. No imagine that the trinity is the mirror that we both use to see the reflection. Matter and anti-matter come together in the middle and meet to form the image.

The excluded middle argument is the one that unifies the either or into an "Oh I see it clearly now." It is the information that was missing to allow us clarity of vision. It means we were both right. Science and religion are the same description of one God. Science is just missing consciousness. It is bias that blinds. Like I said, the flaming sword that protects the tree of life is bias and hatred toward God. Science has this in spades. Loving God reveals trust in what He says. If we can believe that He is capable, then the rest jumps out at us from the page.

That is awesome. I should have looked that up as I was writing the OP. That's a great way to see the image idea. We are a shadow of the original. This bring a whole new meaning to 1 Corinthians 13 It will be nice to get out of the shadow and actually see face to face.

11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
I've always wondered, if God created man in his own image then does God have nipples? Why would God have nipples?

if God created man in his own image..

...why aren't we invisible?

First you need to understand what the meaning of image is in it's original language.

The word for image is צלם, and said, tselem. As in, Genesis 1:27

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

The word tselem does not mean we "look" like God because God is a spirit (Wind) Tselem means "shadow'.

We function like God on a small scale. Let's also not forget that it says "in his own image", it doesn't say we were created with the same power or attributes as God.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Wow, this thread is really going to piss people off.

S&F

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote in your second post on this thread:

["In the beginning (TIME), God created the heavens (SPACE) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (ENERGY)."]

While it's a correct presentation of space/time and matter/energy science, you use an inductive argument to associate it with your alleged creator. The outcome is not valid from a standard scientific perspective, which would request a deductive chain of reasoning.

Quote: ["These are the four basic building blocks of all currently known physics. Here is where the trinity of one God comes in."]

The pauline trinity 'comes in', only because you have put it there.

Quote: ["The father is light (wisdom and the infinity of knowledge)."]

Using a postulate taken from faith, doesn't support any claims of scientific validation. It's not in accordance with scientific/logical procedure to introduce such speculations on the way.

Quote: ["The Son is the Word (LOGOS)."]

No such concept is found in real science, and there are only (even inductive) parallels or similarities, where you make them up.

Quote: ["Light behaves according to the observer."]

You have claimed this elsewhere also. It's not more correct this time, than the first. Light does NOT behave according to the observer, because 'observer' in this context is a made-up concept.

Quote: ["Since the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability, the observer creates what is observed."]

Nope. This is new-age quantum religion on a "What the bleep do we know" level.

Quote: ["God is the first observer."]

Such faith-based claims are invalid in a deductive chain of reasoning.

Quote: ["Why is the Son the Word? A word is a wave. All particles have an associated wave in physics."]

There are different types of waves manifested in existence and acknowledged by science. How does that lead back to any theist mythology?

Quote: ["Christ carries the light of God by His wisdom and knowledge"]

Disregarding that your original assumption on this still is scientificall invalid, you are now mixing sound-waves with light-waves.

Quote: ["One God. Three natures of creation. Keep in mind one thing about the Christian religion. The Bible has the fingerprint of God in both the old testament and the new. Genesis 1:1-3 and John 1. This is our verification that His Word is both written and living."]

I'm glad, that you finally brought up genesis 1. We can start by observing, that genesis 1 describes a geo-centric universe. A not very scientific postulate.

Quote: ["Christ has collapsed the indeterminate wave of probability and changed it to determinate"]

Not more than any other inter-active process taking place in cosmos.

Quote: ["Am I correct? Let me know what you think."]

By twisting science into something unrecognizable, you may believe yourself, that you are right. It has nothing to do with real science however.

reply to post by bogomil

No such concept is found in real science, and there are only (even inductive) parallels or similarities, where you make them up.

I'll take one piece of your conjecture here and associate it with the rest. Cymatics suggests that wave is exactly what brings nature to form. There is a definite relationship between the wave and force of particle physics and the form that matter takes. The best way to describe this is a word. The Bible says that God spoke the universe into existence. A word suggests a wave and it also suggests information. This force and information is precisely what it would take if a creator God spoke a universe into existence. Of course, God uses a metaphor. This is the simplest metaphor to describe to our feeble minds the enormity of the undertaking.

Connect this idea with the fact that humans are made up of particle (Light) and wave. We also have consciousness, which gives us information. You now have the three aspects of the trinity. Induction? I have the Word to back me up. Where is the Word that backs science on the opposite side of investigation. I confirm my findings twice. Science? Not so much. If you bother to look LOGOS up, you find that what I am saying has matched our recent science for thousands of years. Who is using induction again?

Using a postulate taken from faith, doesn't support any claims of scientific validation. It's not in accordance with scientific/logical procedure to introduce such speculations on the way.

Science has done the work for me. We already had the metaphor in the Bible, which predates the verification by science. Keep trying. God has you cornered with the very Word that produced your ability to reason. Enlighten your mind for a change. God is the light that provides the very definition associated with His name. In Him, there is no darkness of shifting of shadow. Shadow is ignorance. We have been ignorant to the meaning of these words which have surrounded His nature for the last few thousand years. We are finally at a place that we can start to get a grip on what He was actually saying to us. We should be celebrating this fact, not throwing it back in His face in arrogance and pride, as if we are above His wisdom and knowledge. This is what caused the fall in the first place.

Quote: ["Light behaves according to the observer."]

You have claimed this elsewhere also. It's not more correct this time, than the first. Light does NOT behave according to the observer, because 'observer' in this context is a made-up concept.

And those words you typed, they just appeared on my monitor? Or did you, the observer, make the light behave according to your will? You are the observer. The light is in a form because you have a will. God is the same only His ability to use the Word formed this universe.

Quote: ["Since the observer collapses the indeterminate wave of probability, the observer creates what is observed."]

Nope. This is new-age quantum religion on a "What the bleep do we know" level.

Again, you are stuck in your bias and blinded to the truth that is right in front of you. When you make a choice, as the observer, you take the indeterminate probability and make it determined. This is how you select an outcome for the future from all the other probabilities that might have occurred when you make a choice. This gives you the will to make light obey your command. Again, God is correct and so is our explanation of physics. I cannot help it that you are not caught up with our current understanding of the basic mechanics that drive our world. Do some research on wave function collapse and relate this to what I have said. No new age here, just current science.

Quote: ["Why is the Son the Word? A word is a wave. All particles have an associated wave in physics."]

There are different types of waves manifested in existence and acknowledged by science. How does that lead back to any theist mythology?

Do you have google? Honestly, just do a slight bit of research. All particles have an associated wave. The Higgs Boson is the last particle wave to be discovered to unify the field theory. Really? Do your homework. Here is a link. Pick a particle and it has a frequency associated with it. This is basic physics 101. I would suggest the book, Physics Without the Boring Bits. It might be a good inro for you. Sting theory is all about the state of vibration a particle possesses. Vibration is wave. Vibration brought about by information is a Word. No other way to describe it and still carry the proper meaning.

From here, I think the rest of your reply is demolished. Incredulity will get you nowhere.

They can take that attitude. I would assume that many people may wake up to the lie they have believed. God and science are one and the same. Science is merely a poor way to describe God. God, on the other hand, is the best description we have of the science that created the universe. This is where science misses the equation. Information is what they refuse to included as a factor. This would admit a creator. Unthinkable. God placed the flaming sword of bias to guard the tree of life. Remove the sword and you must accept God in love. We can't have the keys to the tree of life apart from loving God. Anything else is deception to God. Creation is His to give and not ours to steal.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Wow, this thread is really going to piss people off.

S&F

If you have read the OP, then consider the idea of the mirror image. God in one universe and us in another. The trinity (Light / Force / Information) bridges the gap between. This video series describes this reality from the perspective of quatnum physics and the Dirac Equation. Please understand. What God has stated in the Bible about us in the material world and Heaven on the other side of the tree of life is accurate. We are the roots of the tree above. Physics and current science verifies.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["I'll take one piece of your conjecture here and associate it with the rest. Cymatics suggests that wave is exactly what brings nature to form. There is a definite relationship between the wave and force of particle physics and the form that matter takes. The best way to describe this is a word. The Bible says that God spoke the universe into existence. A word suggests a wave and it also suggests information."]

That was a lot of 'suggestions', arranged in an inductive box of similarities. It should be about time, that you validate this special theist way of argumentation (as we have talked about earlier, going from 'answer' level to 'perspective/method' level), where similarities appear to have argumentation value to you.

Quote: [" This force and information is precisely what it would take if a creator God spoke a universe into existence."]

Yes, in a situation where the answer already is decided, with 'pseudo-facts' adapted to it.

Quote: ["Of course, God uses a metaphor."]

Ofcourse, as when other theist-claims are impossible to justify, it's practical to refer to infallibility, ineffable, 'mysterious ways', the supernatural, human shortcomings etc to fill out knowledge gaps.

Quote: ["This is the simplest metaphor to describe to our feeble minds the enormity of the undertaking."]

For sure.

Quote: ["Connect this idea with the fact that humans are made up of particle (Light) and wave. We also have consciousness, which gives us information. You now have the three aspects of the trinity."]

Had you stayed with the trigunic model, it would have made some sense.

Quote: [" I have the Word to back me up."]

I take it you mean the religious manual, you rely on. It's not a source I put much trust in, as it's dead wrong, when it comes to science and cosmic reality.

Quote: ["Where is the Word that backs science on the opposite side of investigation. I confirm my findings twice. Science? Not so much."]

Depends on what criteria you use. Personally I rely on the combination of what's observable, sound systematic methodology, testing, objective procedure, predictability.That's good enough for me.

Quote: ["If you bother to look LOGOS up, you find that what I am saying has matched our recent science for thousands of years."]

Amongst all the things theists constantly tell me 'to bother to look' up (as a kind of patronizing 'argument'), I also don't need to 'look up' Logos. And it has nothing to do with 'recent science'.

Quote: ["Who is using induction again?"]

Guess who: Logos = consequences of the double-slit experiment.

Quote: ["Again, you are stuck in your bias and blinded to the truth that is right in front of you."]

A bias?..Because I'm not accepting your faith-postulates.

Quote: ["I cannot help it that you are not caught up with our current understanding of the basic mechanics that drive our world."]

You mean the ones, where 'god' etc slips in and out of pseudo-equations. No, I'm not quite up to date on those.

Quote: ["Do some research on wave function collapse and relate this to what I have said. No new age here, just current science."]

Nope. Not the science I'm familiar with.

Quote: ["Do you have google? Honestly, just do a slight bit of research. All particles have an associated wave. The Higgs Boson is the last particle wave to be discovered to unify the field theory."]

There is a difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
'Quantum religionists' like to use hypotheses (with very personal interpretations); so we've seen the misuse of the double-slit experiment, negative enthropy, chaos-theory, tachyons, the 'god'-particle and infinite universes. Prematurely and twisted out of context.

Quote: [" Pick a particle and it has a frequency associated with it. This is basic physics 101. I would suggest the book, Physics Without the Boring Bits. It might be a good inro for you."]

I have actually read physics WITH the boring bits.

Quote: ["Sting theory is all about the state of vibration a particle possesses."]

Yes, the vibes leading to Buddha, Brahman etc (just joking. Your regressed argument is meaningless).

Quote: ["Vibration is wave."]

Yes....and?

Quote: ["Vibration brought about by information is a Word."]

Like "Aum" or something?

Quote: ["From here, I think the rest of your reply is demolished. Incredulity will get you nowhere."]

Declaring yourself a 'winner' doesn't make you one. It's very common that theists do so, and I've always wondered why.