What the Skeptics are Saying

Theomatics is probably the most solid, credible, valid, and scientifically provable discovery of all time---relative to God and the Bible. Yet nobody in the academic community is paying attention.

The facts are all right there---in plain sight---for everyone to see. But few people seem all that interested. As almost 90,000 copies of our original book have sold, and an innumerable number of people have had their hearts blessed and touched deeply by this discovery, it has seemed amazing that to date, no one has picked up on all of this. Surely, the all wise and all knowing Sovereign Lord, has been in control of it all.

On this page of our web site, the objective is twofold: (1) To present, briefly, the method of proof that unequivocally establishes the validity of this subject from a scientific perspective. (2) Answer any criticism or challenges that might pop up in the future.

So far, with the exception of only one man from Wichita, Kansas (Pgs.
90-97, **Theomatics II**), nobody has performed any sort of procedure
or scientific inquiry, intended to either test or debunk this subject.
If anyone has, they have obviously failed, because we have never been told.

At this point, we would like to make a bold and assertive statement that will forever stand.

**It is absolutely, completely, and totally impossible
to mathematically disprove theomatics. The overall validity of this discovery---the
fact that God did it---is unimpeachable. Theomatics will never be disproven.
In fact, no one will even come close. **

In saying this, we do not wish to sound cocky or arrogant. We can state the above with absolute 100% confidence and certainty, because it is based on hard cold mathematical facts. Numbers do not have personal feelings. They have no theological bias or bone to pick.

If anybody out there wants to take on theomatics, they had better prepare
themselves for a major challenge. If they do make an attempt in that direction,
and eventually go public with any "evidence," they had better
also be prepared to defend it with some hard facts. However, the only way
it will be possible for that to take place, would be for the individual
so inclined, to follow a system or method---based completely on their own
testing procedures, or philosophical logic. They must either ignore or
distort the data that theomatics has uncovered. They must invariably resort
to an approach called *deflection*.

Deflection means, that if theomatics has for its established defense,
a scientific position and data that is irrefutable, the critics will *ignore
that evidence*, and instead focus their attacks and arguments on some
other "unrelated" or more subjective aspect of this discovery.

There are a lot of young, cocky, and cynical dudes out there in cyberspace,
who would love to challenge something like this. They actually enjoy discrediting
things and trying to debunk them. That is how they get their kicks and
jollies. Sort of a predator instinct. We will be more than happy to welcome
them to the challenge. What is our advice? *Be prepared to jump over
the grand canyon in your bare fee*t.

*Establishing the Method of Proof*

There is only one way that theomatics can either be proven or disproven.
To *prove* it, it must be *demonstrated* beyond any reasonable
doubt, that the numerical structures and features come from a number base
that is not random, but is structured on intelligent design.

In order to *disprove* theomatics, it must unequivocally *demonstrated*,
that all the data that theomatics has thus far discovered, was found by
arbitrarily picking and choosing from a base of numbers that is strictly
random.

If the numbers are not random---and there is also no basis for supernatural intelligent design---then the skeptic must produce a "natural cause explanation," that both explains the results that theomatics has achieved, plus removes any supernatural element as the cause for the results.

There is no such explanation! (See complete discussion ~ Pgs. 183-188,
**Theomatics II**).

There is a lot of information and statistical studies available on this,
both in **Theomatics II** and **Theomatics
and the Scientific Method.**

Here now, we shall give a very brief synopsis.

*Matching the Results with Random Values*

In order to perform any objective and scientific investigation, both the procedure and end results must be: (1) definable, (2) testsable, (3) the tests repeatable, and (4) the outcome predictable.

There must be absolute ground rules that eliminate as much as possible, any human factor. Various classifications must be pinned down and identified in advance of performing any tests. There can be no accusations of bias or arbitrary manipulation of data, entering into the tests. Private wishes must not be allowed to cook the results of the inquiry.

When theomatics discovers a pattern, it must be defined by the usage of a particular Hebrew or Greek word. Every phrase to be examined must: (1) contain a specific word, (2) be a certain length away from that word in both directions, (3) use only one text, and (4) examine every phrase combination or possibility present.

The computer then proceeds through all the phrases looking for features. It tallies every "hit" within the cluster range of +1, -1 and +2, -2. The evidence is then recorded.

Next the same computer program goes back through all of the same Bible
references, again looking for features. *Only this time, the numerical
values for the letters are jumbled into random allocations.*

**1 .............................. 6****2 .............................. 5****3 .............................. 3****4 .............................. 9****5 .............................. 8****6 .............................. 2****7 .............................. 1****8 .............................. 4****9 .............................. 7****10 ............................ 30****20 ............................ 70****30 ............................ 50****40 ............................ 80****50 ............................ 10****60 ............................ 20****70 ............................ 40****80 ............................ 90****90 ............................ 60****100 .......................... 700****200 .......................... 200****300 .......................... 400****400 .......................... 500****500 .......................... 800****600 .......................... 100****700 .......................... 300****800 .......................... 600**

Standard Random

The computer software currently in use, can mix up to one million random
seed numbers. A random seed is entered, and the program instantly re-calculates
the value of every word---based upon the specific random seed number. Shown
above on the right, is one example. The left side shows the standard theomatic
values for the Hebrew or Greek alphabets. On the right is a sample of random
values---which means that for every word present in the Bible, it would
now have a numerical value that is *different* than the original theomatic
value, and is most certainly random. *It obviously contains no meaning
or significance.*

Next, the computer goes through all the references looking for random features. It tallies every "hit" within the cluster range of +1, -1 and +2, -2. The evidence is then recorded.

Now this experiment is not done just once. It can be done hundreds of times. In fact, up to one million times (if someone wants to take the time to do it). Over and over again the computer searches with the random allocations, trying to play catch up with theomatics.

Furthermore, not only can the programs mix up to one million alphabetical arrangements. They can also go through all the phrase combinations looking for features and attempting to find the "best" number that produces the "best results" within the random values---common to the greatest number of references.

**What this means is that if theomatics has produced a long list of
features from every possible reference to a particular word or topic (with
only one set of standard allocations), the skeptic is now allowed access
to hundreds---even thousands of random alphabet/number arrangements, plus
he can use any number factor he wants to, in order to try and match the
results of theomatics.**

There are some stipulations to all this however. The skeptic must use
*a number at least as large* as what theomatics has used, or a number
of the same probability---not smaller numbers. Also, the number of phrase
combinations must be in *the same range or length* as what theomatics
derived. Longer phrases, obviously have many more possible combinations
in them.

The point to all this is very simple. If theomatics is untrue, if God did not put this supernatural phenomena in the Bible, then that would mean that the numbers theomatics is using, are random based. Therefore, any other random based allocations---should by all reasonable logic---have just as good a probability or chance of producing "features," as what theomatics has been able to produce. Why not?

This method of comparison is absolutely objective and absolutely irrefutable. There is not a mathematical scientist or probability expert on the face of the earth, that will disagree with it. Right now, there are "hundreds" of clearly definable studies in our files, where no one could even come close to matching the results with random values.

*The Clustering Phenomena*

Furthermore, on top of having to match the results of theomatics with random numbers, the next dilemma the skeptic is going to face is the clustering phenomena.

When theomatics *carefully and faithfully records* every possible
hit that falls within the range of +1, -1, or +2, -2, there will invariable
be far more direct hits and +1, -1 hits, than what the laws of chance will
allow. Explaining this more simply, within any given cluster there is a
20% chance of a direct hit, a 40% chance of a +1, -1 hit, and a 40% chance
of a +2, -2 hit .

(20% + 40% + 40% = 100%).

**In virtually every major theomatic pattern that has been discovered
to date, when all the hits are faithfully recorded, there will almost always
be twice as many +1, -1 as +2, -2 hits, plus way more direct hits than
the expected results.** If the numbers were random, this would be like
witnessing a mathematical miracle. It would be no different than challenging
a person to flip a coin 100 times, and get 75 heads and 25 tails---a "total"
impossibility. This clustering phenomena has happened consistently with
tens of thousands of theomatic features over the years. It virtually never
fails (except in perhaps a few short stretch examples).

The clustering phenomena, by itself, scientifically proves the whole theomatic concept.

*What It Proves*

The question must now be asked. What does all of this prove? For one thing, it proves that God put theomatics in the Bible.

What it also establishes, is a total dilemma for any skeptic who wishes
to discredit and debunk this discovery. In order to do so, he is going
to have to take two or three major designs (at least one), and *demonstrate
convincingly* that it is nothing more than the product of random chance.
And the only way that can be done, is to* match* both the feature
output with random allocations, and also *demonstrate* that random
numbers can produce the same clustering curve.

The truth of the matter, is that no one will be able to even come close
to it. In **Theomatics and the Scientific Method**,
all 55 references to Jesus being the Son, both in the Gospel of John and
the epistles of John, were thoroughly tested by computer. No random number
could even come close.

And then, out of *all* 235 features that the computer printed out,
the following clustering occurred.

- Direct Hits: 55 (23.40% ~ expected result 20%)
- +1, -1: 119 (50.64% ~ expected result 40%)
- +2, -2: 61 (25.96% ~ expected result 40%)

In other testing that we have done, the clustering was far superior to even the above.

*Conclusion*

The only way left, by which theomatics can be attacked, is with *pseudo*
methodology.

- The first and most common course of attack, is that various individuals will seek to formulate their own tests and experiments, and perform them in their own way according to their own style and method of logic. They will most likely start out with a negative bias, looking to find "any way the system does not work." After getting the negative result they "hoped" to achieve, they will then publish that information on the WWW---telling the world that they have disproven theomatics.

- The second approach will be with
**speculative, hypothetical, mathematical, theorizing**. This is the sort of logic that tries to prove that aeronautically, that it is impossible for bumble bees to fly. The person using this approach will formulate hypothesis and mathematical models, that theoretically seeks to get the point across, that theomatics does not work and is not valid. This approach has already been attempted by a man from Virginia, a brilliant mathematician. When challenged to match the results with random numbers, he dropped out.

- The third or last method, will be to attack to logic of the whole system. This approach will be philosophical, and will seek to demonstrate that the method of logic in interpreting numbers and associating theological meaning and concepts to numbers, can only bring conclusions that are ridiculous and bizarre. In otherwords, the argument will be made that a system of numbers cannot carry objective meaning from God to man. While scientifically inconclusive, this method will probably be the method used by most critics and evangelical leaders opposed to the existence of theomatics. Of course they will have no explanation for the statistical results that have been achieved.

The fact of the matter, is if theomatics was untrue, matching the results with random values, would be as easy as falling off a log. Failing to discredit or disprove the subject on that basis, the only possible approach left, is either of the above.

**Contact** **Theomatics
Research:** Theomatics@aol.com

Copyright © 1996 Theomatics.com All rights reserved.