Mathematica Theologica: The Universe Defined

By Richard R. Mata

Mathematica Theologica consists of a classical ontological argument in the genre of the likes of William Paley J. L. Mackie, and Thomas Aquinas. What sets the argument within Mathematica Theologica apart from the arguments given by the aforementioned classical philosophers, is the fact that Mathematica Theologica addresses every philosophical argument ever given, which is why Mathematica Theologica is The Universe Defined. If you can learn to connect informational puzzle pieces, then you can comprehend all of the content within Mathematica Theologica, because the content within Mathematica Theologica gives its own definitions, which are individual informational puzzle pieces that fit perfectly with all other informational puzzle pieces within Mathematica Theologica according to logical progression.

Due to this, my knowledge as applied to your knowledge equals a knowledge that is more than the sum of its parts when applied.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Jun 8, 2017
• ISBN: 9781524573669

Richard R. Mata

Richard Mata is a 43 year old native of Colorado. He is a Catholic, Musician, and currently, an Author. Richard started writing Mathematica Theologica in college, and is currently an undergraduate student.

Book preview

Copyright © 2017 by Richard R. Mata.

ISBN:      Softcover      978-1-5245-7367-6

      eBook         978-1-5245-7366-9

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Rev. date: 06/08/2017

Xlibris

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

754997

Contents

Volume I

Dedications:

Foreword:

Introduction Notes to the Reader: Regarding Context/Notes before Beginning This Book:

Chapter 1: Testing a Proof:

This chapter is intended to get the reader into a philosophical state of mind before beginning Mathematica Theologica.

What the term states of nature is According to Logic and Example:

What the term hierarchy of systems is According to Logic and Example:

What an Ontological Argument consists of, and what my Ontological Argument consists of:

Testing a Proof:

Chapter 2: Does God Exist Part One Intelligent Design. A Review of William Paley’s Natural Theology, and Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker:

This chapter sets the foundation for the argument for Intelligent Design by showing similarities between William Paley’s point of view and my point of view; thus, this chapter sets the foundation for my overall ontological argument for the existence of God.

Chapter 2A: Championing Paley’s Natural Theology; a review:

This chapter gives the classical philosophical argument for Intelligent Design from William Paley. Paley utilizes several proofs towards proving that intelligent design exists, including his famous blind watchmaker; note: this chapter incorporates Paley’s point of view with my point of view according to my overall ontological argument for the existence of God; note: in this chapter, God is proven, initially, according to god model, God is proven to be the creator of everything in existence according to philosophical argument and logic, Free Will is explained, God’s mathematical efficiency and greatness are given according to the examples of Free Will and The Catholic Church, God’s efficiency of judgement is given according to the Original Sin of Mankind, and an example giving God’s intelligent design regarding the perpetual motion of the Physical universe is given. Note: it should be noted that the Supernatural Soul is first postulated in this chapter.

Free Will in a Hierarchy of Systems:

The Catholic Church and Free Will:

Good and Evil, or Perfection and Imperfection, and the Differences between Mathematical Efficiency and the Efficiency of Judgment:

Paley:

Conclusion:

Chapter 2B: Dawkins; The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design; a review and counter-argument:

Conclusion:

My Conclusion (Absolute Zero, Perpetual Motion, The Big Bang, and Why Gravity has to be a Radiant Form of Energy):

Random Interactions According to Intelligent Design, because Energy is Endothermic:

The Proof That Gravity is a Radiant Form of Energy, How Radiant Energy Comprises the Fabric of Space as a Buffer Between all Solid Forms of Energy, and the Scale of All Forms of Energy within the Physical Universe:

The Fabric of Space in a Broader Sense:

Food For Thought:

I address the God particle and the actual God particle in this section after I have proven that perpetual motion is possible and does exist according to my given proofs in My Conclusion; note: this Food For Thought section contains five sub-sections within the God particle sub-section, and two more sub-sections thereafter, which gives two scenarios.

The God particle:

A: Matter and Energy: before applying This Context to the God particle:

B: Pair Production in Physics: Energy applied, before applying This Context to the God particle:

C: zero point energy: Potential Energy applied to the Law of the Conservation of Energy in a Closed System, before applying This Context to the God particle:

D: Heat, Gravity, and the Fluid Nature of Energy: the Law of the Conservation of Energy in a Closed System, before applying This Context to the God particle:

Note: what Gravity is, according to the Weak Nuclear Force, is explained in this subsection, the nature of Heat is explained in this sub-section, the nature of Heat and Gravity in a physiological manner is given in this sub-section, the nature of Energy is given in this sub-section, and the fact that Energy has a fluid nature is proven in this sub-section (i.e., the fact that Energy has a liquid nature is proven in this sub-section).

Gravity:

Heat:

The Fluid Nature of Energy:

E: My Ontological Argument before applying This Context to the God particle:

In this sub-section, I show the nature of light according to the nature of God’s intelligent design; furthermore, I show God’s place in His intelligent design in this sub-section.

F: With Philosophical Context Given up to This Point in this Book, the God particle Conclusion:

The Scenario Where Only Light and/or Energy Existed at the Beginning of the Physical Universe:

The Scenario of a Spherical Rotating Thing of Physical Matter that is Self-Perpetuating without Linear Motion:

Conclusion:

What Was Proven:

In this section, I give a final conclusion of Volume I of Mathematica Theologica, which consists of what was proven absolutely in Volume I of Mathematica Theoloica (note: in this section, you get to check your own arguing and conclusions against my overall ontological argument to see what was proven absolutely in Volume I of Mathematica Theologica; note: if there is a discrepancy, then you are missing the point of an argument or a proof; thus, it is suggested that you re-read whatever topic that you are unclear on).

Afterword:

References

Glossary

Volume I

Dedications:

Everything in creation has the capacity to love, even plants, or everything in creation would not be of God or of God’s kingdom.

This book, first and foremost, is dedicated to my mother Josephine E. Mata: Mom, thank you for all that you have done for me in my lifetime. I do appreciate you even though we tend to argue from Time to Time. I especially thank you for being patient with me and for helping me to thrive as much as I have during the last ten years. I love you very much Mom.

This book is also dedicated to the memory of my aunt Nellie Orona, who lived a blameless life and who is now in Heaven where she has rest from this world. I love you very much Nellie. Please watch over me and my mother during these Times.

This book is dedicated to my family members who have passed away: my grandfather and my grandmother, Ablarto Mata and Fabiana Mata, my aunts Rosemary and Julie Mata, and my uncle Phillip M. Mata.

This book is dedicated to my father, Bob Grenado, who gave me life, and to my family on my father’s side: my grandmother Corkey, who I met once in my lifetime, but who was a very good woman. Even though I was a child, I remember the goodness that I saw in her Soul. To my uncle Vincent, who I also met once or twice, but who seemed very put together. Henry and your family (thank you for your hospitality when visiting my father). Lastly, this book is dedicated to my half-brother Augustine. Wherever you are at in life, this book is a Good anchoring point for you to attach to.

This book is dedicated to my God-parents, Salvador and Jacinta Gonzalez, who have helped me and my mother over the years, and who’s help has been very appreciated by me and my mother. I love both of you very much.

This book is dedicated to people who have helped me and my mother over the years:

Libby, Abel Ramos, Fr. Pfeiffer (of the Tridintine Latin mass), Bishop Lafeve (who confirmed me, and who fought to keep the Tridintine Latin mass from disappearing from the face of the Earth), Troy and Taylor Duffy (thank you for the opportunity Troy), Kathy Wolf, Maureen and your mother (thank you for taking Nellie out to the science center before she passed away Maureen, and I also want to thank you and your mother for all that you have done for me and my mother over the past few years), the memory of Mary Ellen Gonzalez, and my family and acquaintances who have helped me at any Time throughout my lifetime.

Furthermore, this book is dedicated to the memory of Viola Garcia, who was my mother’s friend, but who would remember me on the holidays, and to John Garcia. Thank you as well.

This book is also dedicated to people who I have met over the years, or who’s Soul has been noticed by me for various reasons over the years; i.e., these people have much Goodness inside of them and much potential towards Heaven within them for this reason (I used to call people like these decent people, but where I would criticize them for not being Catholic). These people have touched my life in some way or another, even if it was only to get me to think in a very Good way, or to make me laugh in a very Good way:

Cattherine S., A.S., A.S., Megyn Kelly, Shevonne Sullivan (a.k.a. the kid), D.O.R., Dr. Michelle Klinginpeel (again, thank you for all that you have done for me during my aunt’s passing), Jen. C., Gabby C., Rebecca Twill, Martha MacCallum, Bill H., Peter M., Sean H., Kara Preston, Caitlin (the very beautiful woman who used to make me smile when speaking in passing, and who used to make me smile inside when she would smile), Katie Pavlich, Heather Hall (I hope that I have made you think, and that you will grow from your thinking. In moderation of course.), Annette, Richelle C., Suzanne M., Deana F., Milana V., Juliet H (Juliet, you used to make me smile and think at the same Time)., Carolyn N., Emily R., Carrie G., Ellen (your smile definitely matches you voice, which also matches what I have seen in your beautiful eyes), Heather, Kate, Bonnie S., Andrea, Colleen, Cossandra, Angie, Sam Alvarez, Sara Elizabeth C., Ashley P., Diane M., Sara J. U., Courtney, Catherine H., Jen. G., Jane, Becky (your smile is infections Becky), J. Mn., Tiffany C., Erin B., Trish R., Rainy and Brittney, D.G., Linda S., Khadija, Sonya R (Sonya, you have always been too quiet, but that makes your personality soft and gentle, but with a strong and clear reserve)., Sophia, The Math Teacher (I thank you for the normal conversation, and I wonder if you reached some of your goals), Laruen Slaughter (Lauren, I hope I made you think in a very Good way, but with a smile on your face of course), Evil Amy (and her electric sex), Kellie M., Kim P., Andrea B., Casey T., Albany I., Crystal (Crystal, I also thank you for the normal conversation, and I wonder if you have reached your goal of becoming a Park Ranger), Lisa R (you have always been beautiful in your elegance, and if I could describe you in one word, it would be elegant)., Theresa M., Bonnie, Yasmine V., Mary, Jewel K., Rocci D., Mimosa, Carol, Shawn K., Dawn T., Amy, D.O.R., Nicole Mitchell, the ping pong girl, Audra, Sherry, the cute granite girl from Denver, Jaclyn A (thank you for the card and for your consideration Jaclyn)., Mandy B., Libby W., Alyssa L (we were both to quiet to one another)., Sean Hannity, Judges: Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Jeanine Pirro, Andrew Nopolitano, and any one that I may have spaced out.

Lastly, this book is dedicated to Timothy Masters, Stacy Lynn, and all of those currently being gangstalked, or those who have suffered inJustice.

Foreword:

Mathematica Theologica proves: the existence of God, the existence of Free Will, that God, Angels, and Man have Free Will, that organisms of the food chain do not have Free Will, what Free Will is, that infinite regress is impossible, that intelligent design exists due to the fact that infinite regress is impossible, the fact that aliens do not exist, and the fact that perpetual motion is not only possible, but exists within the Physical universe due to the fact that Absolute Zero is impossible within the fabric of space, as well as due to the very nature of Energy (note: this is due to the efficiency that God must create with in order to not be flawed; i.e., in order for God to be God; i.e., God cannot create anything frivolous, such as Physical creation, or God would be flawed); note: the very nature of Energy, which consists of Energy having an innate magnetic nature, a fluid nature, and a tangible nature, this is proven in the second half of the first volume of Mathematica Theologica.

Furthermore, Mathematica Theologica proves: that there is an actual God particle comprised of the true nature of Energy that was responsible for The Big Bang (note: due to this I give a new theory of The Big Bang within Mathematica Theologica), that the theory of evolution is not God creating thinking monkeys for the sake of being thinking monkeys, but God creating Man for the purpose of attaining Heaven through Justice and Charity (which is not a frivolous purpose or God would be flawed), that the human Soul and Physical body exist (which also have perpetual motion in and of themselves after their point of creation due to the efficiency that God creates with in order to be the very definition of absolute infinite perfection), and that Man (with a Supernatural Soul, a Physical body, and a specific purpose in God’s intelligent design) was created according to the efficiency of God, which is why Man was taken from the dirt (note: Man’s Physical substance was taken directly from the dirt due to the said efficiency that God must create with in order to be God; e.g., Man is able to utilize the resources of Physical creation for food, fuel, building materials, learning tools, medicines, technological advances, and etcetera due to said efficiency that God must create with in order to be God).

Note: due to the nature of Mathematica Theologica (especially in the first volume), I provide a missing link between Sir Isaac Newton’s work and Albert Einstein’s work by providing complete reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Physics (or quantum mechanics), which is due to the fact that Mathematica Theologica is The Universe Defined (i.e., Mathematica Theologica defines the Supernatural and the Physical universe, which is why and how the problem of infinite regress is addressed and solved in Mathematica Theologica; note: there has to be a complete reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Physics, or quantum mechanics, in order for the Physical universe to be as efficient as possible, or God is flawed and cannot exist, and this has to be due to the fact that all of God’s creation is created in the image of God regarding God’s efficiency; thus, Mathematica Theologica cannot have any contradictions, or my argument within Mathematica Theologica is flawed. Due to my proven argument within Mathematica Theologica, I invite you to find any contradictions that I might have missed, and with this challenge issued, may the understanding of all mankind increase into a new renaissance; note: Mathematica Theologica also gives my Apologetic Argument due to the scientific content within Mathematica Theologica).

NOTE: the scientific portion of Mathematica Theologica may read as foreign (e.g., how the electron cloud is taught in order to teach a scientific principle); thus, it should be noted that I am giving the Physical universe in Mathematica Theologica according to my view of the Physical universe, where I try to convey my principles in the most simple and understandable way possible; thus, you should adjust your thinking accordingly; note: you may be pleasantly surprised when finished with Mathematica Theologica.

I have other incomplete written works, one, of which, is a patent application for a nuclear reactor, which is based upon the scientific content of Mathematica Theologica; however, I would like to render Volume II and Volume III of Mathematica Theologica as ready for publishing, in an academic sense, first, or soon.

This work of non-fiction (i.e., Mathematica Theologica) is a philosophical work that was written between 2006 and 2012.

My hope is that you learn, grow, and advance due to the content of Mathematica Theologica.

Sincerely,

Richard R. Mata.

Introduction Notes to the Reader: Regarding Context/Notes before Beginning This Book:

• The format of this book is written in print format for the sake of purchased copies. It is converted to web format with this basis for viewing on the website.

• Due to the nature of this work, I have utilized a hybrid Modern Language Association and American Psychological Association format, but with a transcript presentation, which gives it a raw feel. This was done on purpose in order for this book to be able to be utilized as a learning tool.

For example, content in parentheses are given notes, which are given in order to context the paragraph or local prose according to the argument at hand. It is suggested that you read the content in the parentheses, and then apply it to the paragraph or local prose at hand in order to gain a clearer insight of what is being said; thus, if you read this book in this manner, then it will be easier to understand, because the prose of this book doesn’t flow like a traditional fictional or non-fictional work in many places. The content in this work of non-fiction is very specific, and every sentence is specifically written exactly the way that it is due to the sake of context (and for the sake of context), because without this format, my specific and general philosophical arguments can be perverted to mean something else entirely. Note: regarding quotation marks, I have requoted prose in places utilizing quotation marks even if they are not needed, and I have done so in order to let you, the reader, know that a sentence, sentences, or a paragraph was part of a previous point made towards the overall section or sub-section; thus, you can refer back for reference (I have done this because this is a book of philosophical thought).

• Due to this, outside works that are used to synthesize this work are credited according to APA format, while quotes and style are of MLA format. I have also opted to use boldface text and italics (which is my prerogative) in places in order to clarify the applicable argument or arguments at hand (i.e., in order for you, the reader, to gain insight into the logical progression at hand as I see it, or as I give it); furthermore, it should be noted that within the section regarding the God particle, and the actual God particle, I have utilized boldface and italics heavily in order to give this section an extra aesthetic depth, as is my prerogative. I have done this in order to make this work easier to read and comprehend. Also, MLA is unclear about quotations with 4 lines of prose according to all sources that I have researched, and due to this I have utilized block format (single spaced for ease of use) for quotations with 4 lines of prose or more.

Note: as stated, boldface is utilized by me to guide the reader along a course of logic regarding the argument at hand (i.e., if you pay attention to the boldface, it will point out principles and concepts regarding the point being made towards the whole argument, which makes the overall argument much easier to understand, and it will bring up important contextual points regarding the argument at hand); furthermore, italics are utilized by me in order to emphasize words that are very important to the principle, concept, or context at hand (i.e., italics are utilized by me much in the same way that boldface is utilized by me; however, words that are italicized are more specific; thus, italics give the logical progression at hand a finer tuning regarding overall argument and the argument at hand). Note: italics are also utilized by me in order to cite the source work (this is regardless of whether or not I am synthesizing from a secondary source or not; e.g., an anthology), which is done in order to keep my sources as pristine as possible. This tends to keep the point of view of a secondary source out of this book.

Note: regarding the titles of chapters and in-text prose, I utilize colons and semi-colons in the following manner (note: this is regardless of whether or not they fall into the conventions of MLA in any given year or not, and I do this according to logic in order for my work to stand the test of Time; note: this is in conjunction with the regular usage of colons and semi-colons; e.g., colons will also be used preceding a list or a quotation, and semi-colons will also be used as a stronger comma; i.e., for style purposes; e.g., with the words: however, moreover, whereas, also, and etcetera; note: this is the first instance where Time is capitalized due to its given definition in the glossary):

When a colon is given, the content immediately following said colon is to be included as a whole towards the prose before the said given colon (note: said inclusive content is content given after said colon, but before a break is given, and a break is given with a semi-colon or a period). When a semi-colon is given, the content immediately following said semi-colon is to be taken as a specific note towards the prose preceding said semi-colon, which is done for fine tuning (e.g., when I give a note after a semi-colon, it is possible for this note to pertain to a few preceding paragraphs; however, when no note: is stated, but a semi-colon is given, the content following said semi-colon only pertains to the paragraph immediately preceding said semi-colon). Note: when content regarding an i.e., or e.g., is given, the sentence or paragraph may then continue after this point, and this is due to logic and style; thus, said sentence or paragraph is not meant to end, but to continue without pause.

Note: I have opted to capitalize words that show God in the possessive, and I have done so in order to subject the English language to God as is proper to do; e.g., God is in full control of His creation; furthermore, Jesus Christ is also in full control of His creation because He is one Person of God, The Blessed Trinity (note: this is the first instance where God, The Blessed Trinity, and Jesus Christ are capitalized due to my given definitions in the glossary).

It is suggested that you read this book with a pad and pencil, because you can then do your own arguing, or give your counter-argument to each section of this book, and then check off what was proven by me according to your own counter-argument. You should do this in order to take a previous section as a fact before proceeding to the next section (note: all sections of this book are required in order for me to prove my ontological argument absolutely). This is because, it will make it easier for you, the reader, to build up your knowledge of what is fact without having to re-read every argument again in order to apply it to the next argument in succession (this goes towards proving my overall ontological argument as stated).

• I have utilized capitalization and quotation marks with certain words or terms throughout this book, which is due to my given concept or definition. This is because, said capitalization and quotation marks show the word or terms as given by me in specific definition; note: said word or terms may contradict a standard definition or concept, which is why this is done. Furthermore, these specific words or terms should be noted as a theme throughout this book according to my specific definition, concept, or otherwise, because I specifically synthesize my content (i.e., definitions, concepts, or otherwise) according to the works of other people where applicable; thus, this separates my content from the content that I am utilizing to synthesize from. This is done in order for someone to argue against me utilizing my definitions, concepts, or otherwise (as is done in the field of Philosophy), and in order for a better understanding of themes and the whole content of this book. I do not want any subjective observations regarding my material (i.e., the content of my book is not up for speculation due to my style); note: said capitalization will begin, and has begun, here in introduction notes to the reader.

Take the dictionary definition of the word Religion for an example of perverted context.

According to the universal definition of the word Religion, religion is: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group (Religion, In Merriam-Webster.com, 2014, Def. A3).

Because of this definition, the word religion is able to be used out of context regarding a legal decision involving the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, because atheism is considered a religion for the sake of legal judgments regarding the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and this is because hockey can be a religion due to the given definition (as above).

Atheists should not be able to bar religious observation in public due to this, because in order for a religion to be a religion, one must believe in god who gives religion according to law and order (according to one’s beliefs), and this god must be able to judge and punish the one who believes in said god (according to the nature of ‘god’); thus, if one does not live and breathe hockey according to its law and order (that is, if hockey is a religion), then one must be judged and punished accordingly, because religion is an incorporation of one’s beliefs in one’s everyday life (as based upon one’s beliefs in religion according to one’s god); thus, hockey is not a religion and cannot be defined as such; thus, since atheists do not believe in a god, then they cannot enjoy the protections of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, because they do not have a religion needed in order to enjoy the freedom of religion. To play the Devil’s advocate, hockey merchandise should be displayed in public long before all public display of religion is banned (according to the given example).

• It should be noted that, in the field of Philosophy, certain proofs are stronger than other proofs. Theory is the strongest proof that there is in a philosophical argument, as long as it is also based upon mathematics, Physical proof, and empirical evidence (note: this is the first instance where Physical is capitalized due to its given definition in the glossary).

This book utilizes all of these proofs in every argument so that this book cannot be disproven.

Note: if one hypothesis or theory (as based upon its proofs given) contradicts another hypothesis or theory (as based upon the proofs given), then one of these hypotheses or theories must be incorrect; thus, this is why mathematics, empirical evidence, and Physical proofs are given by me in order to prove my theories; furthermore, these theories give a whole interconnected picture of what is (i.e., of what is actually true, or of what actually exists).

• Note: in order to prove myontologicalargument, I must prove: that God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnijustice, Omnijust, Omnibenevolent (i.e., that God is Omniperfect), Onmicharity, that FreeWill exists, that God has FreeWill, that Man and Angels have FreeWill, that organisms in the food chain do not have FreeWill, that Good and Evil exist, the definition of Male and Female, and that God is Male. I have proven these things so that the atheist has to concede that these things exist according to my philosophical argument as given (note: Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnijustice, Omnijust, Omnibenevolent, God, Omniperfect, Omnicharity, FreeWill, Man, Angels, Good, Evil, Male, andFemaleare capitalized here for the first Time due to their given definition in the glossary).

Note: if God is Omnibenevolent (i.e., Omniperfect), then His intelligent design must be based upon the perfections that God creates His intelligent design with; thus, God’s intelligent design must be perfect in its purpose and efficiency, and in its efficiency as based upon its purpose.

• The order of this book series, according to how I have proven my ontological argument, is as follows:

• God is proven to exist (initially) according to the god model,

• FreeWill is given,

• Infinite regress is proven to be impossible,

• Intelligent design is proven to exist according to William Paley’s argument and other proofs (e.g., Absolute Zero is impossible because perpetual motion exists); note: this is according to The Big Bang, as based upon Sir Isaac Newton’s laws of motion, due to my given model of the Physicaluniverse,

• The Soul is proven to exist, absolutely, and it is proven that the Soul is of the Supernatural realm, which is superior to the Physical realm, or the Physical universe (note: this is the first instance were the Soul is capitalized due to my given definition in the glossary),

• God’s omni attributes (needed in order to prove my ontological argument) are proven and tested, and God’sFreeWill is proven absolutely,

• Man’sFreeWill is further proven,

• The theory that Man evolved from non-FreeWill organisms is disproven absolutely,

• The fact that aliens do not exist is proven,

• The hierarchy of systems in God’s intelligent design is proven,

• That God is Male is proven,

• The fullness of creation, according to the fact that God has to be perfectly efficient and the greatest god in the god model, is proven,

• The orders of operation of the human Soul is proven and shown in example,

• The human heart is proven and shown in example,

• God is proven to exist absolutely as based upon my ontological argument of this whole book; i.e., as given and tested.

NOTE: some words above are found in the glossary; furthermore, due to my given definitions in the glossary, said words are capitalized here for the first Time, and will continued to be capitalized throughout Mathematica Theologica, according to the logic stated in introduction notes to the reader regarding said reasons for said capitalization (note: regarding sections in this book where I synthesize from other people’s works, these words may not be capitalized, which is due to the usage of these words, and by whom); note: this is done so that one can argue against my overall ontological argument based upon my logic and definitions, which is how arguments are approached in the field of Philosophy (as stated); furthermore, this is done, because this technique separates my ontological argument from any other argument in Mathematica Theologica (as stated); note: you should familiarize yourself with the glossary terms after reading Mathematica Theologica, so that you can then apply my concepts and definitions (i.e., regarding said terms) as they have been utilized in argument; note: as stated, my glossary concepts and definitions produce an overall picture (i.e., my overall ontological argument) of truth; thus, by familiarizing yourself with the glossary terms, you will gain an insight into the truth of the whole universe; however, it should be noted that not all of my proofs are given in the glossary, because the glossary states the terms therein as fact, where proofs and argument are given throughout Mathematica Theologica (i.e., through all three volumes).

NOTE: this first chapter (Testing a Proof) is written exactly the way that it is in order to get you, the reader, to think for yourself. If you read this chapter (i.e., twice) according to all of the logical thinking contained herein, you will be able to connect the dots. You will be able to connect themes according to what my argument is based upon (i.e., what has been asserted according to the descriptions or definitions that I give; note: for this reason this chapter seems to read backwards). Again, I do this in order to prepare you, the reader, to read Mathematica Theologica according to its intent, which is to get you to come to your own truthful conclusions based upon the logic given (e.g., as based upon principle, concept, and/or definition). This is what the field of Philosophy consists of (i.e., arguing in order to manifest what has to be true). If you do not wish to read this chapter, then you may start Mathematica Theologica in chapter 2. Lastly, when you finish Mathematica Theologica, you should read chapter 1 again, because everything in chapter 1 is proven by the end of this book (i.e., when my ontological argument is proven absolutely).

Chapter 1:

Testing a Proof:

Note: a Saint is hereby defined as: any being with Free Will that attains Heaven.

By the end of this book you should be able to see how these terms apply: "States of Nature," Hierarchy of Systems, Fullness of Creation, God, Justice, Charity, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnijustice, Omnijust, Omnibenevolent, Omnicharity, The Blessed Trinity, Angels, Time, Physical, The Big Bang, perpetual motion, the food chain, Instinct, Adam and Eve, Man, Woman, the Soul, Free Will, Original Sin, Venial Sin, Mortal Sin, Sin, merit, Sanctifying Grace, Glory, Hell, Satan, Heaven, Limbo, Purgatory, Male, Female, The Hypostatic Union, The Immaculate Conception, The Sacred Heart of Jesus, and order of operations (note: order of operations is to be taken as in mathematics); note: some of these words above are capitalized here for the first Time due to the fact that they are defined in the glossary (note: this is according to the logic found in introduction notes to the reader as stated; furthermore, these words will continue to be capitalized throughout Mathematica Theologica in order to encompass and distinguish my ontological argument from outside authors, sources, or works; note: with each new word of this type, I will state this note again along with a first instance of capitalization. You should have your pencil and pad ready, and you should be ready for a deep philosophical discussion; furthermore, it is recommended that you do not drive and read Mathematica Theologica at the same Time if you are easily distracted, because I am defining the whole universe according to what is true).

What the term states of nature is According to Logic and Example:

The term states of nature, or state of nature, applies to the nature of the thing in question (i.e., the parameters of the thing in question, which is then applied specifically or generally) according to: definition, what has been proven, or what exists. For example, the human nature is different from the nature of God; thus, humans have a different state of nature than that of God. Note: God is purely Supernatural in nature (i.e., until actual creation; note: for further reference, see The Hypostatic Union), while Man’s composition consists of a Supernatural and a Physical nature. Note: Jesus Christ is true God and true Man in one Person of The Blessed Trinity (i.e., in one species of The Blessed Trinity, where The Hypostatic Union renders Jesus Christ as completely God and completely Man according to the highest standard of God and Man; i.e., after creation was created).

And I saw a great white throne and the one who sat upon it; from his face the earth and heaven fled away, and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. And another scroll was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged out of those things that were written in the scrolls, [Out of those things that were written in the scrolls: i.e. according to their works, a frequent idea in the New Testa-ment] according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up the dead that were in them; and they were judged each one, according to their works.

And hell and death were cast in to the pool of fire. This is the second death, the pool of fire, and if any[]one was found not written in the book of life, he was cast into the pool of fire.

And I saw a new heaven and a new [New: there are two words that are translated ‘new’ in our English versions. One refers to time; the other to quality. The quality of the Earth will be changed but not the substance; there will be some resem-blance between the old and the new. Cf. Rom. 8, 19 (202).] earth. For the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and the sea is no more. And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her hus[]band. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold the dwelling of God with men, and he will dwell with them. And they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes. And death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourn[]ing, nor crying, nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.’

And he who was sitting on the throne said, ‘Behold, I make all things new!’ And he said, ‘Write, for these words are trustworthy and true.’ And he said to me, ‘It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To him who thirsts I will give of the foun[]tain of the water of life freely. He who overcomes shall possess these things, and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But as for the cowardly and unbelieving, and abom[]inable and murderers, and forni[]cators and sorcerers, and idolaters and all liars, there portion shall be in the pool that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death’ (The Apocalypse of Saint John The Apostle 20:11-15; 21:1-8, the 1954 American version of The Douay Bible).

According to The Catholic Church and the sacraments thereof (as well as the proofs of this book), this passage from the First Epistle of the Apostle Saint John is to be taken literally, because this will be the combining of Heaven and Earth and God and Man at the end of Time (note: this is according to all states of nature in God’s creation; hence: Heaven and Earth). Note: the basic term of Physical refers to anything that is comprised of Energy or the Elements, while the Supernatural is anything outside of these things (note: this is the first instance where Energy and the Elements are capitalized due to my given definitions in the glossary).

What the term hierarchy of systems is According to Logic and Example:

A system contains like natures (e.g., Mankind; a system; e.g., Man; a nature; note: this is the first instance where Mankind is capitalized due to my given definition in the glossary), and a system is also closed off by parameters (much like a nature is); thus, each system is in a hierarchy according to other systems, which is according to the natures that comprise each system (e.g., Mankind comprises a system and organisms of the food chain without Free Will comprise a system; however, the nature of Man is superior to all other organisms of the food chain without Free Will, because Free Will gives Man the attribute of understanding concepts; thus, Mankind is superior to all organisms of the food chain without Free Will in a hierarchy of systems, even though Mankind is part of the food chain; note: for further reference, see Instinct and Free Will); e.g., organisms of the food chain without Free Will comprise a closed system due to the fact that the nature of said organisms is different than that of Man with Free Will; also, the nature of Man renders Man in his own system due to the fact that the Physical component of his nature differs from that of Angels (who are purely Supernatural in nature), where Man is in his own system and Angels are in their own system; lastly, God is in His own system due to the fact that His nature differs from that of His creatures. Since one system is superior to another, then this is what is meant by a hierarchy of systems, what the hierarchy of systems consists of, and why this term is called a hierarchy of systems.

What an Ontological Argument consists of, and what my Ontological Argument consists of:

According to ontological argument, one must prove that God exists as based upon theory (i.e., philosophical argument), while providing solid proofs that support this argument and that do not contradict this argument when thoroughly tested; thus, one can prove the existence of God by showing God’s perfect creation, which has to mirror the perfections of God, who is its creator; i.e., if God is perfect, then God cannot create anything that is imperfect or God is imperfect. My ontological argument proves that God is perfect, and that His intelligent design is also as perfect, but as created (i.e., where God is not created, but who is the creator of everything).

Note: below is a basic test of logic to get your mind in context. This section gives a brief usage of Omnipotence and Omniscience as found in the glossary, where these are but two glossary definitions. As stated, this is done to get your logic ready to read Mathematica Theologica, which is a book of Philosophy. You can skip this part if you wish and begin Mathematica Theologica in chapter two. Note: if you start with chapter 2, this chapter reads as eclectic for the first few pages; however, everything falls into place by the Time you get to Paley’s literal argument (i.e., when you come to Paley’s argument as he wrote it).

Note: it is strongly suggested that you utilize the glossary definitions. If you have a difficult Time doing this, because you are not used to philosophical arguments, then you should use the version of this book as found at mathematicatheologica.com, which is free of charge as long at said website is up, because said version takes you by the hand, regarding said glossary definitions, and leads you through my entire ontological argument. So, why did I buy a copy of your book then, you may ask. Well, since Mathematica Theologica defines the complete universe, then you will want a copy for future reference, because you will have a lifetime of questions that can be answered with the content of Mathematica Theologica (note: since God is infinite, then there are an infinite amount of questions regarding God); also, as stated, my website, mathematicatheologica.com, may not be up forever.

Testing a Proof:

It is a perversion of language to assign any law as the efficient, operative cause of any thing. A law presupposes an agent, for it is only the mode according to which an agent proceeds. It implies a power, for it is the order according to which that power acts. Without this agent, without this power, which are both distinct from itself, the law [emphasis added] does nothing, is nothing (Paley, 2008, pp. 41-42).

According to this book, if God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, then every piece of Physical matter that is in existence today was created in an instant according to God’s Omnipotence and Omniscience, which is due to God’s perfect efficiency (i.e., God does not waste motion, power usage, or action or God is flawed in efficiency regarding His Omnipotence and Omniscience); furthermore, due to God’s Omnipotence and Omniscience, ghosts, or Souls, are not allowed to walk the earth after the Physical Death of a Man (note: this is the first instance where Death is capitalized due to my given definition in the glossary), which is due to God’s judgment and efficiency (i.e., God has to render swift punishment or reward after His judgment upon someone, which is due to God’s efficiency; note: for further reference, see Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnibenevolence).

I.e., due to God’s efficiency, if God utilizes His Omnipotence to will something into existence, then there is no lag Time (i.e., lack of power) in God’s actions or God is flawed and imperfect regarding His Omnipotence; furthermore, if God utilizes His Omnipotence regarding His created creation, ghosts, or Souls, cannot walk the Earth after God renders final judgment upon someone (i.e., after the Physical Death of a Man), or God, who precedes Man, would be flawed (i.e., in His Omnipotence and Omniscience) for not always having complete control over His creation (i.e., before creating creation, during the creation of creation, and after creation is created); note: Man’s Physical body is given back to Man at the end of Time, where it is allowed to decompose before this Time, which is due to God’s efficiency and intelligent design; furthermore, Man’s Physical body is given back to Man at the end of Time, because Man’s complete nature is not frivolous, and this is because God cannot create anything frivolous or God is flawed in His efficiency for creating something frivolous.

Note: if Man created himself, or had the power to create himself, from nothing, or nothingness, then Man would be able to create Energy from nothing, or nothingness; however, Man lacks knowledge and power (i.e., Omniscience and Omnipotence) in order to accomplish this, because Man does not have absolute control over the complete universe (e.g., space travel is difficult for Man; thus, showing Man’s lack of control over the Physical universe, and Man cannot overcome Physical Death; thus, showing Man’s lack of control over Supernatural substance; i.e., over his Soul where Physical Death is concerned; note: for further reference, see Death; note: Man’s Physical body is comprised of Physical substance, and Man’s Soul is comprised of Supernatural substance); thus, Man was created by God who is both Omnipotent and Omniscient, and this is because Man cannot not create himself from nothing, or nothingness; Man simply synthesizes from his Physical environment (note: this is according to the problem of infinite regress).

Chapter 2:

Does God Exist Part One

Intelligent Design.

A Review of William Paley’s Natural Theology, and Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker:

It is a perversion of language to assign any law as the efficient, operative cause of any thing. A law presupposes an agent, for it is only the mode according to which an agent proceeds. It implies a power, for it is the order according to which that power acts. Without this agent, without this power, which are both distinct from itself, the law [emphasis added] does nothing, is nothing (Paley, 2008, pp. 41-42).

Note: it should be noted that infinite regress is impossible (i.e., infinite regress is impossible, because no one has been able to prove that things have just always been; note: infinite regress is proven to be impossible in an absolute manner by the end of this chapter, and infinite regress is proven to be initially impossible according to Paley’s quote above); however, due to the stance of most atheists, Infinite Regress is an actual argument in and of itself. This is because, without providing proof as to why, an atheist usually states that things have just always been.

Note: in today’s world there are atheists that do give an explanation based upon their stance that things have just always been. Some of these explanations are: that there have been many Big Bangs that led to the total creation of the Physical universe, where one