Self-Published Genius #105: Numerical Proof of God

Today we have a new addition to our series about Self-Published Geniuses. This is where we bring you news of authors with a vanity press book in which the author claims to have made paradigm-shattering discoveries, and announces his work by hiring a press release service.

The title of the press release is Author Takes Readers on Journey to Find Fingerprint of God in Revolutionary New Book. It was issued by Globe Newswire, which we’ve encountered before in this series. Here are some excerpts from the press release, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Author and architect Martin P. Miller, NCARB, has published a mathematical and philosophical work that explores the history of numbers, uncovers Miller’s groundbreaking discoveries of prime number sequencing [Wow!], and describes heaven in terms of quantum physics in an easy and understandable style. [Fantastic!] In “Prime Numbers Proof and Journey Finding the Fingerprint of God,” [Great Title!] Miller provides readers with his solution to prime numbers and the order he found within their seeming randomness.

Ooooooooooooh! This book seems to have everything! The press release then says:

A simple-to-digest read, “Prime Numbers Proof and Journey” provides scientific backing to the existence of heaven, God, and miracles. [Gasp!] Throughout, Miller shares his account of crossing paths with heaven during a near-death experience and delves deeply into questions about heaven’s appearance, the potential to travel through time and rewrite history [Wowie!], and the meaning of dreams.

This may be the most amazing book ever written! After that, the press release quotes the author, who tells us:

“Many years ago, I had a near-death experience. I was taken up in a dream to a place of high energy. I thought I had died and was standing in a wonderful place with walls of electric white light,” Miller said. “I’m not the type of person to spread the Gospel, pass out tracks [He means “tracts.”], or persuade someone with a Bible verse. I talk about science and light. I have since had many more dreams, visions, and impressions, and with these events, I understand that God is real.”

Miller has truly obtained enlightenment. The press release continues:

Ultimately, “Prime Numbers Proof and Journey” provides proof of God’s existence as found in nature, human DNA, and the universal language of mathematics. The book also discusses what it takes to unlock one’s hidden potential and offers readers hope that, despite the chaos and turmoil in the world, God maintains an underlying peaceful order.

What a book! Then, quite casually, they say:

Available through WestBow Press.

Aha! That’s a name we’ve seen before. We Googled for them. Yup — their website says they’re a religious vanity publisher. So with that and the author’s press release, the book qualifies for our collection. They also have a large paragraph describing the impressive qualifications of the author. We’ll let you click over there to read that for yourself.

With trembling fingers, we searched for the book at Amazon — and we found it! Here it is: Prime Numbers Proof and Journey Finding the Fingerprint of God: Prime Numbers Solved — Mathematical Proof a First in Twenty-Four Hundred Years. All they offer is the Kindle edition, and it costs $299.25. Amazing price, but it’s 132 pages long, so it’s a good deal! And yes, Amazon has a “Look inside” feature. Hey, there are no reviews yet, so you could be the first!

Oh, wait — at the WestBow website you can buy the book in softcover for $16.95. The choice is yours, dear reader.

Okay, with all the information we’ve given you, we know you can’t resist — so go ahead and place your order. When you do, tell ’em the Curmudgeon sent ya!

Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

27 responses to “Self-Published Genius #105: Numerical Proof of God

  1. You don’t do him justice. “He shares how as a young child, he made a table that fifty years later solved prime numbers. After watching a CD on the history of mathematics, he decided to solve what everyone said was the randomness of prime numbers. The number three – which is everywhere – proved very significant. ”

    They don’t have a Nobel in mathematics (salacious backstory, IIRC), but surely he’s worth a Fields, the nearest equivalent

  2. “I talk about science and light.”
    I immediately believe this. The question is: does Martin talk sensibly about this stuff?

    “A simple-to-digest read”
    That proves that I’m dumb, because I don’t understand at all what “prime numbers sequence every three rows with unit matrix prime quotients; they provide even distribution; primes are not randomand have predictable ‘white and gray negative spaces’ that are composite whole numbers.” means. And that’s only the first paragraph.

    Figure 1 from chapter 1: the number 1 is not a prime number, as it has only one divisor while prime numbers has two. An encouraging start!
    Oh wait, this is a gem.

    “This is a study of prime numbers, which we’ve all seen one time or another; after watching a (BBC) movie about them, they seemed different and were not solved for twenty-four hundred years.”
    Aha, a BBC movie taught the Ancient Greeks a few things about math.
    (Yes, I understand that I’m uncharitable, but hey, I’m here for fun)

  3. Dax Williams

    They are Arabic Numbers . Does allah know?

  4. Gwyllm Griffiths

    The link provided is to Amazon’s India site, so that 299.25 figure is actually in rupees (note also the symbol preceding it; it ain’t a “$” dollar sign).

    Still, you’d think a mathematician would be more detail-oriented with his numbers.

    Given the author’s obsession with the divinity of prime numbers, I’ll also resist the temptation to make bad puns about Amazon “Prime”….

  5. Anyone know how being certified by the “National Council of Architectural Registration Boards” qualifies him?

    And dreaming about dying is a far cry from having a near death experience.

  6. Templeton Prize, anyone?

  7. @Paul Braterman
    About Nobel Prize in mathematics, lack of: the salacious story that I heard involves Nobel’s wife and a famous mathematician. But Nobel was not married.

  8. @TomS; Quite so. See Wikipedia: “An early theory that envy led Nobel to omit a prize to mathematician Gösta Mittag-Leffler[6][7] was refuted because of timing inaccuracies.”

    Another good folk tale spoiled

  9. Ken Phelps

    ” I was taken up in a dream to a place of high energy. ”
    Yeah, so was I, but then Jethro Tull finished their set and the acid wore off.

  10. Dave Luckett

    Be fair. He describes the near-death experience and the dreams as separate events. NDE’s, frequently resorted to as evidence for an afterlife, and hence for God, are known to be inducable from oxygen deprivation to a specific part of the brain – I forget its name. Fine, they’re natural phenomena, then. What hasn’t been explained is the high degree of consistency across cultures they demonstrate. What would cause evolution – or whatever natural effect is happening here – to make dying a pleasant experience?

    Beats me. Since it’s a subjective experience, like any other subjective experience, it’s not evidence for God. Like all claimed evidence for God, it can be dismissed on at least one of several different grounds. That’s damning, but also paradoxically subversive. It appears to me that by definition it’s impossible to demonstrate conclusive evidence for God. That being the case, the demand for conclusive evidence is an unreasonable demand.

    So here we are back at square one. The maze must lead always to the same room, but there is neither Minotaur nor God to be found. It’s empty, void, profitless, sterile. A castle in the air, this maze.

    It is said that visionaries design castles in the air, but that dements live in them. True, but it’s in many ways a superior domicile, with a lovely view.

  11. @DL. “…I had a near-death experience. I was taken up in a dream to a place of high energy. I thought I had died…”
    That does not seem a separate event to me. People who have life threatening events typically can not help but to describe them in detail (some very private people can resist but then they don’t really write books about it either).
    I am trying to be fair but I can not reconcile the idea that dreaming of or thinking about death in any way equates to a near death experience.

  12. @DaveL: “He describes the near-death experience ….”
    I’ve had two as well, caused by high fever. No god involved but indeed rather pleasant. NDEs as “evidence” for a god are a typical case of cherry picking.

  13. Dave Luckett

    “I have since had many more dreams, visions, and impressions…” These are separate events. He claims the original to be an NDE, as well, separately.

    FrankB: What is being “cherry-picked” here? The experience of NDE is relatively common. It is not invariable, but there are high degrees of convergence in all accounts of them. I no more than you regard them as evidence for God – but I am aware that there is no possibility of evidence that can conclusively demonstrate the existence of God.

  14. @DaveL: sorry if I was unclear – apologists who present NDEs as evidence for their god are the cherry pickers. They always neglect testimonies like mine. In other words: if Martin’s testimony is credible, then why not mine? And my testimony is: no god, no heaven.

    “there are high degrees of convergence in all accounts of them”
    I strongly doubt if that also includes gods and heavens. There is selection at work; I’ve never read about Inuit and Amazone Indian NDEs and hardly about NDEs of unbelievers like me. And I’ll categorically reject the suggestion that chrisitan NDEs are representative for anything but those christians themselves.

  15. Dave Luckett

    FrankB: You cannot testify that there is no god, no heaven. You can only testify, as I can, that you have no experience of either, and do not credit the accounts of the experiences of others.

    But many have testified to near-death experiences, and there is a fairly strong correlation between the accounts they give, including cross-culturally. See,from%20China%2C%20Siberia%20and%20Finland.

    Of course, like every such account whatsoever – in fact, like every attempt to provide evidence of God, gods, or an afterlife – it can all be dismissed as mistake, delusion, hallucination, fraud or natural effect, the last of those as a reasonable assumption even if the natural cause is not understood. After all, the argument goes, what is more likely, a whole supernatural world, or simple misunderstanding of nature?

    Nevertheless, and conceding the force of that argument, I still don’t know.

  16. @DaveL: it looks like we’re talking past each other. The short version:

    “You cannot testify that there is no god, no heaven.”
    No. But if apologists like Martin can claim they can he should accept that I can too. Matter of fair play.

    The long version, largely paraphrazing Herman Philipse’s God in the Age of Science:

    When dealing with thngs like NDEs apologists (not me, I don’t believe anyway) much make a choice.

    1.They can “claim that the area of the divine is so totally different from all areas of scientific and scholarly research, that the methods of [apologetics] must be very different across the board, without any possibility of validating them by the usual types of tests”.
    Basically this is NOMA. The problem of the apologist is twofold.

    a) As far as such apologetical methods have been developed they are totally unreliable (when we are charitable christianity has 4000+ denominations); they are elusively vague and it’s even hard if not impossible to make sense of them. So the desired conclusion – a god – is totally invalid. As a result they lose all “intellectual respect, given the present state of the sciences and scholarship”.
    Still I think, apparently like you, this is what apologists should try if they want to argue for a god or even do research on a supposed supernatural realm at all.

    b) Due to the total lack of success of a) creacrappers and also this SPG choose the second option. They try to develop methods that are very similar to scientific methods. For instance prayer has been tested by Francis Galton in 1872 and Krucoff et al. in 2005 (the Mantra II research, published in The Lancet o July 2005).
    Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Worse, philosophy of science can even explain why – the concept of a supernatural entity meddling with our natural brains, producing images of a supernatural realm like heaven is incoherent.

    At this point we can do Martin a favour and “counterfactually and for the sake of argument assume that (apologists) are able to solve these problems”. This is what I did. Guess what? Martin still fails and not only for the reason I gave (he neglecting testimonies like mine). But here I have to stop – I’m not capable of summarizing five chapters, ie 100+ pages in a reasonably short comment.

  17. Oh (bleep!), I’m not smart enough for this. Next attempt.

    1. NOMA. Problem: lack of credibility.
    2. Riding the bandwagon called science. One problem of many (like incoherence – as not only you but also TomS and I have exposed many times): all testable apologetic claims thus far have been falsified, Examples:

    a) Newton’s prediction that a god would remain necessary to sustain his model of our Solar System was refuted when Laplace developed his’ nebular hypothesis.
    b) Our well known hero Paley “observed that astronomy ‘is not the best medium through which to prove the agency of an intelligent Creator'”, Less than 60 years later Darwin wrote The Origin Species, demonstrating again that scientific theories are superior to apologetic ones.
    c) The prediction (on apologetics) that prayer works was refuted.
    d) Positive testimonies about NDEs are contradicted by negative ones like mine.

    @DaveL: So you’re attacking a strawman. I do not argue that my testimony justifies the conclusion that there is no god. I argue that Martin should accept my testimony if he expects his readers to accept his.

  18. The Indian mathematician Ramanujan was a devout Hindu and credited many of his results to the goddess Namagiri.

  19. Dave Luckett

    FrankB: “Positive testimonies about NDEs are contradicted by negative ones like mine.”

    No, they are not. Martin’s assertion that he has had an NDE is not contradicted by your assertion that you have not, and that you don’t believe him. And that is all you can truly say.

  20. Thanks for neglecting everything else I wrote, DaveL.
    Also you’re totally wrong.
    I did not assert I have not had a NDE; I claim i’ve had two and that they were totally different from Martin’s.
    Also I did not write that I don’t believe him. I wrote that if he wants me to believe him he has to believe me.
    What I can and cannot truly say is not up to you to judge as long as you prefer attacking strawmen.
    That’s it for this thread afaIc. Previous experiences with you make it likely that you won’t get out of any rabbit hole you dug for yourself.

  21. If he has a pattern for the prime numbers, doesn’t that mean it should be easy to factor them? Sounds like he has broken all the modern encryption schemes, to me.

  22. @KeithB
    There are sets of equations which generate prime numbers. See the Wikipedia article “Formula for primes” under the heading “Formula based on a system of Diophantine equations” for one example.

  23. Dave Luckett

    FrankB: Please accept my apologies. I took the statement that you’d had two NDE’s as ironical. You say there was no god involved. I take from that, that you do not regard your experience as anything but some kind of hallucination. You associated it with fever. It would appear that you regard it as a natural effect, with no implications for an afterlife.

    You make the salient point I was trying to make. Certainly you may so regard your NDEs. You relegate them to the realm of the natural, to which realm every phenomenon can be relegated. All claimed evidence for God – all, whatsoever, no matter what it is – can be so dismissed, if it is not dismissed immediately out-of-hand as delusion or fraud.

    But all that means is that evidence for God is impossible to produce by definition. It is unreasonable to categorically rule out a possibility and then demand that it be provided. I do not say that that is what you are doing, mind.

    But you do claim that anybody who believes NDE’s to be possible evidence for the divine, is “cherry picking”. That is no strawman. You do say that.

    You had an experience. You say “no god was involved”. Many others say that they have had similar experiences, and assert that they did involve a god, or a divine presence or a vision of Paradise. They are not “cherry picking” to make such an assertion. They are merely stating that they perceived something that you did not.

    To move the question to something that concerns this blog, if I look at the Jovian moons, and after some minutes, assert that they are not moving, is an astronomer “cherry picking” to assert that the moons do move? All that has happened is a disagreement over the evidence, to be resolved by further observation. But what if no further observation is possible, for some reason? What if there is no means to resolve the disagreement? It is merely a disagreement. Neither side is “cherry picking”,

    A parallel process occurs with evidence for evolution. Creationists deny it all. Are we “cherry picking” to urge it? No, of course not. But the principle remains: if we are not “cherry picking”, neither is the theist who regards NDE’s as evidence for the divine. Agnostics/atheists merely categorically reject them as evidence. We/they may be right to do so. More than that, I cannot say. And neither can you.

  24. The mathematician Ramajuman told us that the goddess Managiri revealed to him certain equations.
    Atheists and Christians agree in.not accepting his observstional
    evidence for the goddess. But how do they explain his knowledge of those equations?

  25. Having a formula that generates a subset of the prime numbers is different than finding a pattern for *all* the prime numbers.

  26. @KeithB
    I am not a mathmetician. But it seems to me that the Wikipedia article is about formulas which generate exactly, without exception, the prime numbers. As I recall, there are simple equations which generate an infinity of prime numbers, but I can be mistaken. If I am right, then there is no point to that article.
    In any case, does the book we’re discussing make the claim for a formula, that it generates prime numbers, all of them, and only prime numbers?

  27. The sieve of Eratosthenes is a brute force method of finding prime numbers, but can not give you any pattern to them. But if you have a pattern for prime numbers you can, for example, look at the prime numbers near the square root of your number assuming that the two factors are the same size.