My highest intention for this blog site is for it to be the centre of discussion about The God Franchise.

Please ask me anything you wish about the concepts or the implications of The God Franchise, and I will blog you a detailed response.

1. themathofgod says:

Alan,

In one of your latest tweets from your book, you talk about the Law of Mathematics and you use the equation 1 + 1 = 2. This is a topic I discuss in The Math of God and may be where you and I take divergent paths. Now let me preface my statements by making it clear I am not trying to diminish your theories. As always, I appreciate that you seek Truth and have undertaken a daunting task of writing a book with the hope that others might join in that search. I often marvel at how close our journeys have taken us while reaching quite different conclusions

In The Math of God, my focus is on two words: States and Values. We as humans, assign values thousands if not tens of thousands each day. We assign values to ourselves, our beliefs and our actions. We also assign values to others, their beliefs, and their actions. But because those assignments are rendered from ever-shifting, fallible perspectives, the assignments don’t reflect reality but a Planck-length snapshot interpretation of what we believe is reality. As such, the interpretation (or perception) cannot be real.

States, on the other hand, are a mode or condition of being. In other words, a mode or condition either exists or it doesn’t and is independent of our beliefs, doctrines, and diatribes. If a condition is true, then it is true (or exists) no matter what I believe about the condition. And if the condition is not true then it is not true (or doesn’t exist) no matter what I believe. As such, states must be real while values cannot possibly be real.

Now, what does does this have do with the equation 1 + 1 = 2? 1 and 2 are values, not states. What makes a two a two? It is nothing more than a reference point (or word assigned to identify that reference point) based on agreed-upon scale by which we make calculations within the four-dimensional world we believe to be reality. But does 1 + 1 always = 2 outside of the dimensions with which we are most comfortable? Now I’m not attempting to get into a string-theory or super-string theory discussion here. Why? Because they are theories which means they were rendered from limited and fallible perspectives. Instead, I encourage you to look to the pages of The God Franchise and see where you might actually be pointing to other dimensions but that you may have never thought of as dimensions. The reason I feel this is so vital is because we tend to put ourselves in boxes with which we are comfortable. And yet we are more than that?

We often here about the known laws of physics. What about the laws of physics we don’t yet know? And what about metaphysical laws? If right and wrong exist (adnw , they cannot be based on physical laws but on metaphysical laws. And yet we can’t stop there. It appears there is more than the physical and metaphysical. In your book you talk about your higher-self and your lesser-self. In what dimensions do these exist?

Getting back to the equation, let’s say I have love and I add love. Is the sum 2 loves or does it simply remain love? Or what about truth? I have truth and I add truth. What is the sum? It remains truth. Why is this so important? It has everything to do with adding something that is contrary to the first. If I have a millions truths and then add a single untruth, the sum is not 1,000,000 truths and an untruth. The sum becomes untruth.

I’ll post more later.

Hopefully one day soon you and I can sit down and discuss our books at length.

Lyle

• Alan H. Dawe says:

Hi Lyle

Thank you for your thoughts on my tweets, and sorry I have been so long ruminating over them. I have enjoyed your Math of God blog (http://themathofgod.wordpress.com/) (time for an update?) and am looking forward to your book. And like you, I have been interested in the parallels of what we each are thinking and writing, when we come from such very different perspectives. I can say that your concepts of States and Values make a lot of sense, and are a fundamental fact of life.

However, I am struggling with how your current comments fit with my serialised tweet from The God Franchise. The four tweets in this context are:

“God-Consciousness is eternal. This means that God-Consciousness has no beginning and no end.”

“It is hard to conceive of anything having no beginning and no end. Logically, it is possible there could be something outside time.”

“There is no reason whatsoever why consciousness cannot be eternal. Perhaps a good analogy is the Laws of Mathematics.”

“The Laws of Mathematics are eternal would you not agree? No one invented 1 + 1 = 2. It just is, was, and always will be.”

It is arguable that the Laws of Mathematics were not a part of God-Consciousness prior to the Creation (Big Bang), and were a creation in themselves. However, as an analogy to the eternity of God-Consciousness, it would seem reasonable to claim that ” The Laws of Mathematics are eternal … No one invented 1 + 1 = 2. It just is, was, and always will be.”

I am not sure that the question of state or values is important or even valid here. I am just talking about simple arithmetic and the fact that, if I have a single item and you have a single item, then collectively we have two items. The word “two” is different in different languages, but the meaning of the word, in objective terms, is just as I have described. Therefore 1 + 1 = 2.

This has nothing to do with belief, but with the description of objective reality. Therefore the terms “one” “plus” “equals” and “two” are a way of objectively describing the world we live in, and therefore are more “state”-like than “value-like” in my estimation. Also, I would say that the number “1” always has the same significance, and therefore is always true – so 1 + 1 = 2 can never be untrue or false, even using your method of interpretation.

Yes, it would be great to discuss our books. Have you read your copy of The God Franchise yet? Are you making progress towards completing your book and getting it published? If I remember rightly you were not looking at the self-publishing options, or has this changed?

Lyle, many thanks for your thoughts, and if I have misunderstood some of your points, please re-state them and I will re-value them…

2. Hi,

I read your three omni-posts and have a question about free will. In your last one you say we have free will but how can that be if God knows everything and is all powerful? If I personally decide something with “free” will then I have that power to decide, so I have that specific power and not God.

You might say he could override me (but he doesn’t, or it isn’t free) or he had the power to give me free will but at the point of making the decision it is my power to decide (so he can’t be all powerful) and presumably because it is my choice then God doesn’t know the outcome of my decision until I declare it so then he isn’t all knowing.

How do we have free will?

(P.S. I like you blog and personally I think God is omni-omni so I’m curious to see where you are heading.)