Tuesday, November 11, 2008


Hello everyone!

I'm sure you're wondering, what in the heck is Unisecularism? Basically what you're about to see below is an article I wrote on Wikipedia. It was deleted (but occassionally pops back up on google search). The reason it was deleted was given as this:

undiluted neologism=original research

Basically I came up with something that no one else has ever thought of, just for fun. Now I'm posting the article below, with references, just as it was on Wikipedia. Unisecularism essentially is, well, a bunch of bull. I basically made it up as a plot device for a story I intend to write later on called 8. I wanted to post it here though just to see what people think of it and whether they find it an entertaining concept. If you like some of my stories up to this point, I think you'll love this! It is long and you will have to scroll alot, but believe me you'll be entertained! Enjoy and remember, it's just make believe. I cannot stress that any more strongly.

Unisecularism or Unisecularism Paradox, by definition means to draw from both religion and science, a middle ground that cannot exist. By virtue, this practice is that of philosophy and theology meeting with science in such a way as to irradicate one another. Based on the principle that if a human being, being separate from God, obtained the knowledge of God, they would effectively cause both to cease to exist. A human being cannot exist on the level of humanity if their knowledge is in accordance with that of God, thus like matter and antimatter, they annihilate one another instantaneously. The result is the end of existence for everything. This is in relation to the Theory of Everything[1], which to this date cannot be deduce through practicality, and laws dominating physics. Also it violates that with which most theological standpoints claim is impossible, that man can or could be God. If it is both impossible to violate the laws of physics and impossible to be on the same level as God, then a human that does so would effectively become know as an antiGod. The resulting abstraction of there being both a God and antiGod would cause the unraveling of all known things and unknown as well. You cannot live apart from God and be God at once. It would result in a paradox state causing all things to "blink" out of existence.


This is how the theory of unisecularism paradox goes, a man, albeit a physicists or regular human being, comes to the conclusion of the perceived and true view of the Theory of Everything. Their conclusions are correct and correlate to mathematical or algorithmic calculations and reasoning leaving no room for doubt. In essence, this man has come to the ultimate truth of existence. In doing so, the man, or for that matter woman, is bombarded with the incalcuable knowledge for which there is no other reasoning than the divine. They would obtain the knowledge of both known and unknown all at once. Their brain capacity would exceed the sustainable limit that scientists perceive today. In short they would be growing out of their head.

Once this person obtains this knowledge, a universal understanding of sorts, it would put them into direct contact with a God presence. Whether or not this is the perceived God that religions hold to is inconclusive. The only way you would know is if you solved the Theory of Everything. This would truly be the only way to have contact with God, other than through means in history that God revealed Himself to humans. This theory also assumes that God is in fact an omnipresent being incapable of truly interacting with humans on the same level, whether by the act of sin or by design. If the only way to God is through a messenger of grace then by postulating a theorem that allows a being to attain a level of existence with that of God on their own, this grand feat would cause a paradox in which case proving God to be fallible. If God is infallible, all beings must come to His existence through Him and not of their own accord. To find your own means of attaining the existence of God would be to reason that God does not control all things. If God does not control all things, all things are in chaos. A chaotic state cannot sustain itself and therefore all things must come to an end.

Paradox State

The effect of such a paradoxical event could be perceived as simply one second everything is here, the next everything is gone. Upon achieving this theorem, and instantaneous knowledge, everything would cease to exist immediately after the realization of the solution. Thus no other beings within our universe, including the being that formulated the theorem correctly and understood its implications, would be aware of the end of existence. Perhaps the being that correctly devised the theorem would realize what is about to happen, but it would be too late to stop it from occurring. Thus, like in time travel, you may have an event much like the Grandfather Paradox[2].

In this case, as with the paradox, the being correctly theorizing the calculations for the Theory of Everything would inexplicably die from some form of either self induced or recognizable form of death. If the theory suggests that by deducing such a theorem would effectively terminate God as well, it would not be possible to achieve the theory. Thus, as the scientist is writing the final answer to the theorem, they die. Hence, the unknown scientist responsible may have an immediate thrombosis or embolus to the heart, lungs or brain, fatal myocardial infarction, self inflicted fatality (suicide) before they finish writing out the results, or a chance accident (bullet from outside the room penetrates wall hitting scientist in the head and killing them before they deduce the end result). With the scientist dead that was figuring out the end result, the theorem is incomplete and not proven. This process would continue on and on as long as someone continued trying to solve the Theory of Everything. (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


Uni- is the prefix representation of one. It defines a singular entity that could encompass all. Uni- of course stems from unity, unification, united all with a representation of the whole being brought together as one. This is a popular theme with theology in that all things are represented by one, true, all powerful God. Therefore the basis of unisecularism is that there can be only one God. Thus if any other being attributes Godliness, they are proving God to be completely and utterly fallible.


Secular or Secularism is a state of being separate. Many theologians believe that mankind is in fact separated from God. Theology proposes the sin factor. Because sin has been brought into the world through way of disobedience there is no longer a way to be within the presence of God without coming to God in some form or fashion. Christianity proposes the indisputable method of salvation through Jesus Christ. Some other religions and methodologies testify to the possibility that all human beings have the ability to become a God presence, such as Hinduism, Scientology, Confucianism, and even Islam. All promote an ethereal oneness of self with a higher power authority. The only way to obtain this oneness is to follow the path of multiple messengers throughout history, otherwise known as prophets. As human beings we will always be considered separate from God, as per the view of theological human beings representing God on Earth.

George Jacob Holyoake coined the phrase secularism[3]. His definition was far removed from religion, considering religion to be neither necessary nor relevant[4]. Separation from God was by all means necessary for the betterment of mankind[5]. Barry Kosmin would decidedly agree that the consideration to find absolute truth was both futile and nonsense[6]. These two men would have supported the concept of Unisecularism in a human role of trying to find absolute truth without God, and failing miserably because it is impossible.

Unisecularism in Fiction

Several fictional accounts hint at the unisecularism and unisecularism paradox concept here. The Nine Billion Names of God by Arthur C. Clarke hinted at the concept in a theory that by generating all nine billion names of God from a computer program, all existence would come to an end[7].

In the motion picture Mission: Impossible III the fictional IMF Technician Benji Dunn, played by Simon Pegg, talks of a secret package known only as "The Rabbit's Foot" as a possible device that could "eviscerate" existence, or a possible antiGod, using that term in the actual film[8].
The novel Blasphemy by Douglas Preston depicts one of the world's most powerful supercollider machines presumably interacting with a God presence as the scientists at the facility try to reconstruct the universe at the moment of the Big Bang. This entity never truly acknowledges itself as God, but does implore a pseudoscientific approach to religion[9].

In the case of these particular fictional accounts there is an overlapping theme, the search for an absolute truth or power. In the end of each that power is still highly mysterious, unfounded or even a hoax, or leads to the implied ending of everything. Arthur C. Clarke's tale is the most resembling of Unisecularism at work suggesting that the knowledge of God could be attainable, in that the names are listed out in the computer program, and suddenly, without warning "...overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out"[10] (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In Search of the Theory of Everything

Many scientific scholars and the like have attempted to piece the puzzle together of how to explain the Theory of Everything. Albert Einstein spent the latter half of his life trying to combine Gravity and Electromagnetism into a grand scheme known as Unification[11]. After Einstein's efforts proved unsuccessful, scientists introduced, not long before the famed scientist's death, Quantum Mechanics that brought into play three new forces, Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Force and Electromagnetism but excluded Gravity altogether[12]. This did not sit well with any scientist, particularly Einstein.

Later on a new theory was devised that "tied" the universe up in a tight ball of "string", String Theory or M-Theory[13]. This theory proposed that all matter in the universe, down below the level of quarks, are made up of tiny strings that interact with one another and seem to hold and meld the universe together as one big melting pot of matter[14]. Although String Theory is the closest representation to a Theory of Everything that has yet to be achieved, it is not capable of empirical testing, thus it cannot be proven[15].

Much like Einstein, who was a patent clerk when he devised General Relativity[16], a surfer by the name of Antony Garrett Lisi published a paper entitled "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything"[17]. In this paper the Theory of Everything comes down to a postulation that unifies quantum physics and gravitation in a unified field theory using the Wilhelm Killing E8 structure[18]. Lisi believes the universe intertwines in a geometric space-time that is infinitely vast[19].

Of course, if any of these theories were proven correct, Unisecularism could be an end result. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the theories are unproven and in some cases cannot be tested and will never be proven. For Unisecularism to occur, one stand alone Theory of Everything would have to be proven empirically, mathematically, geometrically and infallibly true. Since most theories remain theories because of their innate inability to be proven, and holding to Holyoake's and Kosmin's beliefs about the quest for absolute truth, hopefully Unisecularism or a Unisecularism Paradox can never occur.


Lesliejas (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Jurgen Schmidhuber. Algorithmic Theories of Everything. 30 Nov 2000
Barjavel, Rene (1943). La voyageur imprudent ("The imprudent traveller").
Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pg. 113
Holyoake, George J. (1896). English Secularism. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company.
Holyoake, George J. (1896). English Secularism. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company
Kosmin, Barry A. "Hard and soft secularists and hard and soft secularism: An intellectual and research challenge
1967 - in Clarke, Arthur C. The Nine Billion Names of God: The Best Short Stories of Arthur C. Clarke. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1967.
Mission: Impossible III (2006). The Internet Movie Database. Retrieved on 2007-02-04
The Official Douglas Preston & Lincoln Child Web Site
1967 - in Clarke, Arthur C. The Nine Billion Names of God: The Best Short Stories of Arthur C. Clarke. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1967.
Paul Arthur Schilpp, editor (1951). Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Volume II. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers (Harper Torchbook edition), pp. 730–746. His non-scientific works include: About Zionism: Speeches and Lectures by Professor Albert Einstein (1930), "Why War?" (1933, co-authored by Sigmund Freud), The World As I See It (1934), Out of My Later Years (1950), and a book on science for the general reader, The Evolution of Physics (1938, co-authored by Leopold Infeld).
P. A. M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (1930) -- the beginning chapters provide a very clear and comprehensible introduction
The book The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene, Professor of Physics at Columbia University, was adapted into a three-hour documentary for Nova and also shown on British television. It was also shown by Discovery Channel on Indian television, as well as in Australia on SBS.
The book The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene, Professor of Physics at Columbia University, was adapted into a three-hour documentary for Nova and also shown on British television. It was also shown by Discovery Channel on Indian television, as well as in Australia on SBS.
The book The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene, Professor of Physics at Columbia University, was adapted into a three-hour documentary for Nova and also shown on British television. It was also shown by Discovery Channel on Indian television, as well as in Australia on SBS.
PBS (2003). The Elegant Universe Home Page on PBS. PBS NOVA
An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything
Is mathematical pattern the theory of everything? - fundamentals - 15 November 2007 - New Scientist
An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

If you would like to see the actual article from Wikipedia, you may click on the link below:


No comments: