Scientific proof that God exists?

[ObscureBean]

@the joint  Ok, I've followed your link and have gone over " Introduction to the CTMU " briefly. I'll tell you this, he doesn't know what he is talking about, it's that simple. His theory is full of loopholes and in no way describes an all-inclusive reality. Any theory that makes use of even a single assumption does not deserve to be acknowledged, his is riddled with them. You'd do well to look elsewhere for your inspiration. His theory can certainly be perfect but for that he would have to give himself up completely for it and even then, it would be perfect only for him.
And that would just take us full circle back to this reality as it is without bringing anything new to the table. The fundamental/fatal flaw with the most all-encompassing human science, mathematics, is that it cannot handle infinities. It simply breaks down into incoherencies at that point. A lot of work has been done in an attempt to patch up this ginormous hole and make it look like it's holding but it's all just that, a cover-up. We have not reached deep enough in our everyday use/application of mathematics to feel the effects of this flaw but it's there. The reason I bring this up is because the universe/reality is made up entirely of infinities. I parted ways with sciences early on while still in high school and have since never looked back. There is no way I'm spending my life studying something that I know is not perfect.

Side note:

I've noticed something that is common with 'intellectuals', they tend to make extensive use of obscure words/terms. I think that's a real shame. If I were to ever write a 'theory of everything' I would make sure that it is as easy to understand as possible. Why? Well simply because it would be a far bigger challenge that way. I would want to have as many people as possible to read and understand it so that I can get as many refutations as possible to test myself. I don't believe in a strict definition for intelligence. People who've never studied any sciences can sometimes come up with thrilling counter arguments. Langan's text will only ever appeal to a minute portion of the world's population. That these select few deem themselves to be the brightest minds on earth is not nearly enough for me. Ideally I would want every living human to have a go at refuting my theory.

You're incorrect when you state it's not possible to prove that a limit of theorization exists and what it might be.  We've already demonstrated it's possible.  As an analogy, draw a tesseract on a sheet of paper and you gain insight into the limits of 3-dimensional spacetime.  The method for exploring these limits involves invoking a higher-language to discuss lower-order languages.  This higher-order language would be hologrammatically the same, but with total syntactic precedence over all lower-order languages.  The reason we can draw a tesseract at all as a model of a 4th-dimensional object is because we invoked our own higher-order language.  In other words, we assumed the vantage point of a 5th-dimensional being observing a 4th-dimensional object in the same way that a 3rd-dimensional being observes a 2nd-dimensional model of a 4th-dimensional object.

So a theory of theories requires a 'prime' language, so-to-speak, which would be hologrammatically the same as all lower-order languages but infinitely greater in that all lower-order syntax conforms to syntactic precedents set by the 'prime' language.

Regarding this, you either have not paid careful attention to my words or you didn't understand what I meant. After reading everything you say here, my statement still stays true.

Ok I think that's it. I don't believe we can reach any further than we already have with this discussion and I'm starting to get bored with the topic. If you have a specific question you would like to have my view on, feel welcome to ask, otherwise I will consider this discussion closed.

Oh one last thing, I've enjoyed this little sparring session, I think you're a nice guy and pretty humble too  

[1714945446]

1714945446

[1714945446]

1714945446

[the joint]

@the joint  Ok, I've followed your link and have gone over " Introduction to the CTMU " briefly. I'll tell you this, he doesn't know what he is talking about, it's that simple. His theory is full of loopholes and in no way describes an all-inclusive reality. Any theory that makes use of even a single assumption does not deserve to be acknowledged, his is riddled with them. You'd do well to look elsewhere for your inspiration. His theory can certainly be perfect but for that he would have to give himself up completely for it and even then, it would be perfect only for him.
And that would just take us full circle back to this reality as it is without bringing anything new to the table. The fundamental/fatal flaw with the most all-encompassing human science, mathematics, is that it cannot handle infinities. It simply breaks down into incoherencies at that point. A lot of work has been done in an attempt to patch up this ginormous hole and make it look like it's holding but it's all just that, a cover-up. We have not reached deep enough in our everyday use/application of mathematics to feel the effects of this flaw but it's there. The reason I bring this up is because the universe/reality is made up entirely of infinities. I parted ways with sciences early on while still in high school and have since never looked back. There is no way I'm spending my life studying something that I know is not perfect.

Side note:

I've noticed something that is common with 'intellectuals', they tend to make extensive use of obscure words/terms. I think that's a real shame. If I were to ever write a 'theory of everything' I would make sure that it is as easy to understand as possible. Why? Well simply because it would be a far bigger challenge that way. I would want to have as many people as possible to read and understand it so that I can get as many refutations as possible to test myself. I don't believe in a strict definition for intelligence. People who've never studied any sciences can sometimes come up with thrilling counter arguments. Langan's text will only ever appeal to a minute portion of the world's population. That these select few deem themselves to be the brightest minds on earth is not nearly enough for me. Ideally I would want every living human to have a go at refuting my theory.

You're incorrect when you state it's not possible to prove that a limit of theorization exists and what it might be.  We've already demonstrated it's possible.  As an analogy, draw a tesseract on a sheet of paper and you gain insight into the limits of 3-dimensional spacetime.  The method for exploring these limits involves invoking a higher-language to discuss lower-order languages.  This higher-order language would be hologrammatically the same, but with total syntactic precedence over all lower-order languages.  The reason we can draw a tesseract at all as a model of a 4th-dimensional object is because we invoked our own higher-order language.  In other words, we assumed the vantage point of a 5th-dimensional being observing a 4th-dimensional object in the same way that a 3rd-dimensional being observes a 2nd-dimensional model of a 4th-dimensional object.

So a theory of theories requires a 'prime' language, so-to-speak, which would be hologrammatically the same as all lower-order languages but infinitely greater in that all lower-order syntax conforms to syntactic precedents set by the 'prime' language.

Regarding this, you either have not paid careful attention to my words or you didn't understand what I meant. After reading everything you say here, my statement still stays true.

Ok I think that's it. I don't believe we can reach any further than we already have with this discussion and I'm starting to get bored with the topic. If you have a specific question you would like to have my view on, feel welcome to ask, otherwise I will consider this discussion closed.

Oh one last thing, I've enjoyed this little sparring session, I think you're a nice guy and pretty humble too  

Yes, I have a few questions:

1)  You generally mention all these inconsistencies and assumptions, but I haven't seen you mention a specific one.  Would you?

2)  You mention that you don't want to study a theory of this nature if it isn't perfect.  Well, empiricism runs into the fallacy of induction, and mathematics runs into the problem of indeterminism (i.e. there's no good way to distinguish between two or more equally-valid theories given a set of conditions).  Philosophical induction isn't perfect in the same way that empirical induction isn't perfect, and philosophical deduction at such a high level of generality generally relies on axioms which are incapable of proving themselves.  If these other approaches don't work, what else do you have in mind?  The point I'm getting at here is that, based upon what you claim you're looking for, it seems there will never be any scientific or purely mathematical theories comprehensive enough to describe reality, and so you'll never spend time studying anything unless you come across a different type of theory.  So, what kind of theory would it need to be in order to compel you to study it?

3) Would you agree that 'ratio' is the root word of 'rationale'?  If so, would you also agree that any rational statement necessarily invokes relativism, i.e. that there is no such thing as a purely objective statement?

4) Stemming from #3, if you answered "yes" to both questions, would you also agree that, while there is no such thing as a purely objective statement, objectivity still exists in the sense that any relationships between two or more conditions are bound by a higher-order relational syntax?  As an analogy, consider the relationship between cognition and metacognition whereby the latter objectifies the former.

5) If you've answered "yes" to all questions contained in #'s 3-4, what then is wrong with a self-referential theory of reality whereby a metalanguage is used as an objective descriptor of the language of reality?  For example, if language A₁ is capable of acting as an objective descriptor of languages A₂, A₃, etc..., then why can't we invoke a new language, A', to act as a descriptor of A₁?

[ObscureBean]

@the joint Oh wow I wasn't expecting you to come out with soooooo many questions lol It would take me ages to write about all the stuff that's coming to my mind as I read your text. Patience is definitely not one of my strongest suits but no matter, I'll address all of them  I'll answer 1 or 2 questions per day depending on how I feel at the time. Also I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from asking more questions until I finish this batch 
 
From the get go let me tell you this, I will not be discussing Langan's theory further after I answer your first question. My original assessment of his text stands and I do not wish to refute it claim by claim because it would no longer be an environment for learning, instead it would be a battle of egos. I steer clear of those and would rather be called a faker if it comes down to that. The only reason I'm responding to you is because I feel your comments are not motivated by pure ego. A clash of egos is a dead end from which nothing constructive can emerge 
However, if you've somehow integrated some elements from his original idea into your own theory, I'll make an exception, as long as you're not defending his stance but your own.

I've had this message window opened like forever lol, if I find some time later I'll answer your first question, else I'll do it tomorrow for sure. Hope you're more patient than I am 

[bl4kjaguar]

All the science that can clearly be used to validate evolution, can also be used to validate simple change based on programming due to changes in climate and environment.

What about the scientific anomalies that Darwinists, Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents alike are unable to explain?

Evidence for Creation by Outside Intervention

[bl4kjaguar]

@ the joint, thanks for your detailed explanation, you make some very valid points. While I agree that the concept of a "theory of theories" would indeed constitute a priori knowledge from which we could properly investigate the nature of reality (and whether a god exists), I'm not sure that such a concept could ever practically exist. You've certainly given me something to think about though!

Might be fruitful to check out this theory of theories:

our understanding of understanding, further analyzed

[BADecker]

All the science that can clearly be used to validate evolution, can also be used to validate simple change based on programming due to changes in climate and environment.

What about the scientific anomalies that Darwinists, Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents alike are unable to explain?

Evidence for Creation by Outside Intervention

Because someone can't explain something now, doesn't mean that he won't be able to explain it in the future. A hundred years ago, there wasn't enough technology around to go to the moon. Now we can explain how it is done, and also do it.

God hasn't explained the scientific methods He used for doing most of the things He has done. Some of what He has done may be beyond science. The Bible shows that God uses angels to get things done at times. Anyone who doesn't happen to know where the angel came from, yet sees the angel do his work, might call it outside intervention.

[the joint]

All the science that can clearly be used to validate evolution, can also be used to validate simple change based on programming due to changes in climate and environment.

What about the scientific anomalies that Darwinists, Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents alike are unable to explain?

Evidence for Creation by Outside Intervention

Because someone can't explain something now, doesn't mean that he won't be able to explain it in the future. A hundred years ago, there wasn't enough technology around to go to the moon. Now we can explain how it is done, and also do it.

God hasn't explained the scientific methods He used for doing most of the things He has done. Some of what He has done may be beyond science. The Bible shows that God uses angels to get things done at times. Anyone who doesn't happen to know where the angel came from, yet sees the angel do his work, might call it outside intervention.

It's clear by your statements you still have no idea what the scientific method is.

The emboldened statement demonstrates your confusion.  There is one scientific method -- it isn't plural.  From the scientific method we can devise many *experimental* methods, but that's a different topic.

Moreover, the scientific method isn't a means of creating, it's a theory about how we gain knowledge as a result of empiricism.

To say that "God hasn't explained the scientific methods He used for doing..." simply doesn't make sense.

Instead, you seem to be saying, "We haven't yet been able to fully explain all natural processes via the scientific method."  I agree with this statement.

But, then your confusion continues when you say, "Some of what He has done may be beyond science."  And then you talk about...angels?  What the hell?

Brief logic lesson:  Anything that is real exists within the Real Universe.  There cannot be anything real outside of the Real Universe because, if it is actually real enough to impact the Real Universe, then it must be  in the Real Universe.  This includes God, angels, or whatever other phenomena you believe is real.   There is no possibility of "outside intervention."  Again, this is because if something were real enough to intervene from outside the Real Universe, then it would already be in the Real Universe.  Conversely if something is not real, then it cannot intervene in the Real Universe (because it would need to be real).

[bl4kjaguar]

BADecker,

Anyone lacking knowledge had best keep an open mind and get on with his/her studies.

You are not supposed to be attacking your brother with words like "foolishness".

Where is the proof for your claim that the Bible is the only recorded word of God?

How can you be sure that you have Christ's authentic teachings if your book was not written by Christ?

How can you be sure that Paul wrote down Christ's authentic teachings if Paul was never a "follower of Christ"?

I am fed up with your attacking my beliefs; you have no right to speak anything to me unless it happens to be an apology.

[BADecker]

All the science that can clearly be used to validate evolution, can also be used to validate simple change based on programming due to changes in climate and environment.

What about the scientific anomalies that Darwinists, Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents alike are unable to explain?

Evidence for Creation by Outside Intervention

Because someone can't explain something now, doesn't mean that he won't be able to explain it in the future. A hundred years ago, there wasn't enough technology around to go to the moon. Now we can explain how it is done, and also do it.

God hasn't explained the scientific methods He used for doing most of the things He has done. Some of what He has done may be beyond science. The Bible shows that God uses angels to get things done at times. Anyone who doesn't happen to know where the angel came from, yet sees the angel do his work, might call it outside intervention.

It's clear by your statements you still have no idea what the scientific method is.

The emboldened statement demonstrates your confusion.  There is one scientific method -- it isn't plural.  From the scientific method we can devise many *experimental* methods, but that's a different topic.

Moreover, the scientific method isn't a means of creating, it's a theory about how we gain knowledge as a result of empiricism.

To say that "God hasn't explained the scientific methods He used for doing..." simply doesn't make sense.

Instead, you seem to be saying, "We haven't yet been able to fully explain all natural processes via the scientific method."  I agree with this statement.

But, then your confusion continues when you say, "Some of what He has done may be beyond science."  And then you talk about...angels?  What the hell?

Brief logic lesson:  Anything that is real exists within the Real Universe.  There cannot be anything real outside of the Real Universe because, if it is actually real enough to impact the Real Universe, then it must be  in the Real Universe.  This includes God, angels, or whatever other phenomena you believe is real.   There is no possibility of "outside intervention."  Again, this is because if something were real enough to intervene from outside the Real Universe, then it would already be in the Real Universe.  Conversely if something is not real, then it cannot intervene in the Real Universe (because it would need to be real).

I'm sorry you are having a bad day. But, judging from many of your other posts, it may be a bad life in general.

Most of us use descriptive, often idiomatic, inexact language to get our points across. The language is, itself, built this way. For example, you drive on the parkway and park in the driveway.

Among those who use descriptive language that is not grammatically accurate, and may include some idioms, is bl4kjaguar. In fact, he/she/it uses such language quite frequently. My response was for him/her/it.

Sorry that you are getting mixed up through it. Realize that it is a language for bl4kjaguar and not necessarily for you. However, I think that you can determine what I was trying to say if you take a step back and look at the picture. I mean, if you look at a Picasso too from about a millimeter away, you won't have a clue about anything that he was trying to depict.

By the way, the fact that there are logical and illogical things that happen and exist, doesn't mean that there are no "unlogical" things that more or less happen and more or less exist. Just ask bl4kjaguar.

[BADecker]

Anyone who doesn't happen to know where the angel came from, yet sees the angel do his work, might call it outside intervention.

In any case, mis-perception can affect "anyone who doesn't happen to know", so it is ALWAYS best to keep an open mind, study hard, and check as many sources as possible.

Remember, Christ never wrote down a single word and Paul was never a "follower of Christ".

These facts should be enough for anyone to be able to think critically about the Bible.

Also, your "outside-angel" myth is contradicted by the Bible's creation myth which has God creating all plants at once in a single "day" without the use of angels.

Thanks for the advice. And, how can I NOT remember that Jesus never put pen to paper. You remind me all the time.

A question about that though. In the Gospel of John, when the Pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus, what was it that Jesus wrote on the ground that scared them away one by one?

[bl4kjaguar]

BADecker,

Anyone lacking knowledge had best keep an open mind and get on with his/her studies.

You are not supposed to be attacking your brother with words like "foolishness".

Where is the proof for your claim that the Bible is the only recorded word of God?

How can you be sure that you have Christ's authentic teachings if your book was not written by Christ?

How can you be sure that Paul wrote down Christ's authentic teachings if Paul was never a "follower of Christ"?

I am fed up with your attacking my beliefs; you have no right to speak anything to me unless it happens to be an apology.

Apologize to me, loser.

[the joint]

I'm sorry you are having a bad day. But, judging from many of your other posts, it may be a bad life in general.

You don't even make sense when you insult people.  Seriously, what does this even mean?

Most of us use descriptive, often idiomatic, inexact language to get our points across. The language is, itself, built this way. For example, you drive on the parkway and park in the driveway.

If you change the definition of science then you're no longer talking about science.  Your parkway/driveway nonsense is in no way a relevant response.

Among those who use descriptive language that is not grammatically accurate, and may include some idioms, is bl4kjaguar. In fact, he/she/it uses such language quite frequently. My response was for him/her/it.

But your response doesn't make sense because you start making up definitions for words.  This has nothing to do with bl4kjaguar.  Your response to him simply doesn't make any sense.

Sorry that you are getting mixed up through it. Realize that it is a language for bl4kjaguar and not necessarily for you. However, I think that you can determine what I was trying to say if you take a step back and look at the picture. I mean, if you look at a Picasso too from about a millimeter away, you won't have a clue about anything that he was trying to depict.

I'm not mixed up at all as I can clearly identify (which I've been demonstrating) where *you* are getting mixed up, for example when you keep using the words "science" or "scientific method" over and over but keep making up new definitions for them on the fly.

So no, I don't know exactly what you were trying to say because you believe in statements which don't make any sense.  How am I supposed to know what you mean when it doesn't make any sense?  

By the way, the fact that there are logical and illogical things that happen and exist, doesn't mean that there are no "unlogical" things that more or less happen and more or less exist. Just ask bl4kjaguar.

Illogical things happen and exist?  Lol are you a wizard?  Name one.  BTW, "unlogical" isn't a word.  Quit making stuff up.

[ShetKid]

I believe in god, I know god exists.

I don't think scientists can prove it. How can we prove it though? How can we know god actually exists?..

The world is the answer.
How do you think the world was created?
How do you think the first man came?
How do you think were all here today?

We have to agree, that at some point there was only 1 person in the world, and now look at it...

all these questions must have one explanation or real answer.
That answer is: God exists

[BADecker]

I'm sorry you are having a bad day. But, judging from many of your other posts, it may be a bad life in general.

You don't even make sense when you insult people.  Seriously, what does this even mean?

Most of us use descriptive, often idiomatic, inexact language to get our points across. The language is, itself, built this way. For example, you drive on the parkway and park in the driveway.

If you change the definition of science then you're no longer talking about science.  Your parkway/driveway nonsense is in no way a relevant response.

Among those who use descriptive language that is not grammatically accurate, and may include some idioms, is bl4kjaguar. In fact, he/she/it uses such language quite frequently. My response was for him/her/it.

But your response doesn't make sense because you start making up definitions for words.  This has nothing to do with bl4kjaguar.  Your response to him simply doesn't make any sense.

Sorry that you are getting mixed up through it. Realize that it is a language for bl4kjaguar and not necessarily for you. However, I think that you can determine what I was trying to say if you take a step back and look at the picture. I mean, if you look at a Picasso too from about a millimeter away, you won't have a clue about anything that he was trying to depict.

I'm not mixed up at all as I can clearly identify (which I've been demonstrating) where *you* are getting mixed up, for example when you keep using the words "science" or "scientific method" over and over but keep making up new definitions for them on the fly.

So no, I don't know exactly what you were trying to say because you believe in statements which don't make any sense.  How am I supposed to know what you mean when it doesn't make any sense?  

By the way, the fact that there are logical and illogical things that happen and exist, doesn't mean that there are no "unlogical" things that more or less happen and more or less exist. Just ask bl4kjaguar.

Illogical things happen and exist?  Lol are you a wizard?  Name one.  BTW, "unlogical" isn't a word.  Quit making stuff up.

Well, good. At least you're not becoming suicidal like that joker in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=868926.0 .

[Vod]

[ObscureBean]

1)  You generally mention all these inconsistencies and assumptions, but I haven't seen you mention a specific one.  Would you?

Ok before I even say anything on this, I would like to set up a little scenario/experiment to explore the word 'impossible'. This is the simplest and easiest to understand analogy I could come up with but do not be fooled, if you stay open minded, it should help you resolve the vast majority of tricky questions  Also keep in mind that 'impossible' only equals to 'limit'.

Challenge: describe the color 'red' to a person of your choice. You are free to use any means you can think of.

Now imagine a world where every living being is color blind and you are the only one to see colors. You would fit in just as you fit in now and you would spend your whole life without ever knowing that you are different. This is an instance of a limit that exists without you ever being aware of it.

Going up a notch, imagine what it is to be a grain of sand (notice that I didn't say 'what it is like') With all of your senses tending to infinity, you are still not able to apprehend the reality of being a grain of sand.
I'm gonna use this picture I've painted as a simplistic but to the point definition of an infinity (i.e something that cannot be apprehended in it's entirety by the senses. You can chase after it forever but will never actually get there)

Going back to your question, for Langan's theory to even make any sense at all, it is imperative that everything within the universe/reality be brought down from their natural state of being which is infinite.

I find it curious that he says, I quote "Nor, for identical reasons, can we think of the universe as the sum of its parts, for these parts exist solely within a spacetime manifold identified with the whole and cannot explain the manifold itself." and then goes on to say "This rules out pluralistic explanations of reality" Where does he situate himself within his statement?
If he considers himself 'a part of the universe', is he not contradicting himself when he says "cannot explain the manifold itself" and then goes on to explain it anyway?
The analogy that comes to my mind is that of a single living cell on an arm that identifies with the body as a whole but cannot explain the consciousness that its interaction with other cells around it help bring about.

"which simply tells us what we should and should not be considering." How is it even possible to have a complete theory if there are certain things that should not be considered.

There are countless other inconsistencies but we'll skip those

Ok now to tackle his theory as a whole. The crux of his proposition: he explains everything within reality, (that extends to things he is not necessarily aware of) by a self-including reality. It is not a stupid idea, I guess some would say it's clever, however all he's done is bypass his own sensory/intellectual limits by empowering reality with sentience. The important thing he fails to grasp is that he is still not apprehending eternity. He's merely transposed his/the current state from the confines of his physical body/mind to a near-infinite body called reality. The same limitations that apply to him also apply to the self-including reality. It's like the single living cell, giving up it's individuality and empowering its reality (the whole body) with sentience. But then we all know that the body is not everything, because there is the body's own reality. Same thing, different scale. The serpent twisting to eat it's own tail. His all-encompassing reality will never know of it's own limits if it's not aware of it. A limit only exists once you become aware of it.

That's it for today! 

[Vod]

[the joint]

1)  You generally mention all these inconsistencies and assumptions, but I haven't seen you mention a specific one.  Would you?

Ok before I even say anything on this, I would like to set up a little scenario/experiment to explore the word 'impossible'. This is the simplest and easiest to understand analogy I could come up with but do not be fooled, if you stay open minded, it should help you resolve the vast majority of tricky questions  Also keep in mind that 'impossible' only equals to 'limit'.

Challenge: describe the color 'red' to a person of your choice. You are free to use any means you can think of.

Red is visible light with a wavelength of about 650nm.

Now imagine a world where every living being is color blind and you are the only one to see colors. You would fit in just as you fit in now and you would spend your whole life without ever knowing that you are different. This is an instance of a limit that exists without you ever being aware of it.

In that example, it's possible to become aware of the limit.

Going up a notch, imagine what it is to be a grain of sand (notice that I didn't say 'what it is like') With all of your senses tending to infinity, you are still not able to apprehend the reality of being a grain of sand.
I'm gonna use this picture I've painted as a simplistic but to the point definition of an infinity (i.e something that cannot be apprehended in it's entirety by the senses. You can chase after it forever but will never actually get there)

Okay, I'm imagining. It sounds like you're talking about shared experience...with sand.

Going back to your question, for Langan's theory to even make any sense at all, it is imperative that everything within the universe/reality be brought down from their natural state of being which is infinite. 

I'll follow along with this assumption for now.

I find it curious that he says, I quote "Nor, for identical reasons, can we think of the universe as the sum of its parts, for these parts exist solely within a spacetime manifold identified with the whole and cannot explain the manifold itself." and then goes on to say "This rules out pluralistic explanations of reality" Where does he situate himself within his statement?
If he considers himself 'a part of the universe', is he not contradicting himself when he says "cannot explain the manifold itself" and then goes on to explain it anyway?

Obviously, I can't speak for him, nor do I prefer to.  However, this passage seems to discuss the issue:

But what if we now introduce a distinction between levels of proof?  For example, what if we define a metalanguage as a language used to talk about, analyze or prove things regarding statements in a lower-level object language, and call the base level of Gödel’s formula the "object" level and the higher (proof) level the "metalanguage" level?  Now we have one of two things: a statement that can be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, and thus recognized as a theorem conveying valuable information about the limitations of the object language, or a statement that cannot be metalinguistically proven to be linguistically unprovable, which, though uninformative, is at least no paradox.  Voilà: self-reference without paradox!  It turns out that "this formula is unprovable" can be translated into a generic example of an undecidable mathematical truth.  Because the associated reasoning involves a metalanguage of mathematics, it is called “metamathematical”[/i].

The analogy that comes to my mind is that of a single living cell on an arm that identifies with the body as a whole but cannot explain the consciousness that its interaction with other cells around it help bring about.

I don't think the analogy holds.  Our knowledge of the Universe is born of a linkage between mind and information.  Minds process information in a logical way, resulting in an observably consistent Universe.  A theory of theories explains the relationship between mind and reality, i.e. theorization.  We already partake in this relationship on a continual basis, so it is possible to reflect upon our cognitive relationship via metacognition, thereby objectifying it.

"which simply tells us what we should and should not be considering." How is it even possible to have a complete theory if there are certain things that should not be considered.

Certain things are topically irrelevant.  For example, any talk of what might exist outside of reality is irrelevant.  If something was real enough to affect reality, it would be included within it.  So, hypotheticals, unobservables, unreals...stuff like that.

There are countless other inconsistencies but we'll skip those

Okay.

Ok now to tackle his theory as a whole. The crux of his proposition: he explains everything within reality, (that extends to things he is not necessarily aware of) by a self-including reality.

You don't necessarily need to explain things of which you're not aware if you can explain the nature of conditional phenomena in general.  Things which are logically impossible to be aware of are irrelevant.

It is not a stupid idea, I guess some would say it's clever, however all he's done is bypass his own sensory/intellectual limits by empowering reality with sentience.

I think it's self-evident that observation gives rise to definition of real phenomena.  A total lack of observation means that information isn't being processed and therefore remains unintelligble, i.e. the information isn't processed into theory.

 

The important thing he fails to grasp is that he is still not apprehending eternity. He's merely transposed his/the current state from the confines of his physical body/mind to a near-infinite body called reality.

I don't think "apprehending eternity" is any sort of primary consideration of this theory.

The same limitations that apply to him also apply to the self-including reality. It's like the single living cell, giving up it's individuality and empowering its reality (the whole body) with sentience. But then we all know that the body is not everything, because there is the body's own reality. Same thing, different scale. The serpent twisting to eat it's own tail. His all-encompassing reality will never know of it's own limits if it's not aware of it. A limit only exists once you become aware of it.

It seems that most of your rebuttals assume the idea that reality causes mind rather than working in tandem to beget each other.  I believe this is an appropriate quote:

Reality, i.e. the real universe, contains all and only that which is real. The reality concept is
analytically self-contained; if there were something outside reality that were real enough to affect
or influence reality, it would be inside reality, and this contradiction invalidates any supposition of
an external reality (up to observational or theoretical relevance).31

While this characterization of reality incorporates a circular definition of relevance, the circularity
is essential to the reality concept and does not preclude a perceptual (observational, scientific)
basis. Indeed, we can refine the definition of reality as follows: “Reality is the perceptual
aggregate including (1) all scientific observations that ever were and ever will be, and (2) the
entire abstract and/or cognitive explanatory infrastructure of perception” (where the abstract is a
syntactic generalization of the concrete standing for ideas, concepts or cognitive structures
distributing over physical instances which conform to them as content conforms to syntax).

It should be noted that any definition amounts to a microscopic theory of the thing defined. The
Reality Principle, which can be viewed as a general definition of reality, is a case in point; it can
be viewed as the seed of a reality theory that we have now begun to build. In defining reality as
self-contained, this “microtheory” endows itself with a simple kind of closure; it calls on nothing
outside the definiendum in the course of defining it, and effectively forbids any future theoretical
extension of this definition from doing so either (this becomes explicit in a related principle, the
MAP).

That's it for today! 

Okay

[Vod]

[TheTribesman]

There's no scientific proof that God exists because its not the job of scientists to prove that God exists. There are no multi-billion dollar labs searching for proof of the existence of God in the heavens (well, none that I know of).

Please note here that there's also no scientific proof of Love (not infatuation) either.

They leave that to artists, poets, and movie makers.