I'm sure your view has similarities with that of 18th century mathematicians, but these days I'm not so sure:

Such as this article that discusses the (mis)use of the term 'god particle' for the Higgs boson

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/13/us-science-higgs-god-idUSTRE7BC28H20111213?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=309301

Personally I find it amazing that mathematics can predict the existence of things that we currently cannot detect. So often these theoretical particles/forces are later proven accurate. Note the scientists of CERN are completely willing and able to produce new theories regarding the working of the universe based on the results of their measurements and observations. If only religious folk were capable of doing the same.

Brian

Might I respectfully suggest that your faith in mathematics goes too far. The laws of physics (expressed in mathematical form) do not explain everything about the universe we live in - see 'How solid are science, reason and critical thinking'
http://cpds.apana.org.au/Teams/Articles/EvangelicalAtheism.htm#Secondly

And as the latter notes, East Asian societies with an ancient Chinese cultural heritage (rather than the West's classical Greek heritage) start by assuming that there are no universal laws.

John Craig

Brian, in your previous article
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12699&page=2
you wrote "How much more do the masses need to be witness to before finally appreciating that evidence-based knowledge is the only knowledge upon which decisions are to be based?"

I am wondering, where is the physical evidence to support your thesis that "God is now speaking to us"

David

Contemplating God in mathematical terms can be confusing, Mr Holden. So it is not surprising that thinking in this manner can become entirely circular, as do all the "God exists because" discussions.

Here's where you chase your own tail in this article:

"Most mathematicians have rejected the notion of God as a supernatural being who loves us and wishes to be loved in return"

...to be blitzed by your final statement:

"If you cannot accept formal religion or the delusionary world of New Age, but still feel that 'there is something out there,' then the more of a mathematician you become, the more you will know what that something is."

Leaving aside for the moment the absence of evidence for "most mathematicians" rejecting God, surely it is a contradictory concept, that greater understanding of mathematics makes you more religious?

Or am I missing something?

Knowledge and the mathematical extrapolation of “God”…

…# I am so afraid to open my clenched fists!
Who will I be when I have nothing left to hold on to?
Who will I be when I stand before you with empty hands?
Please help me to gradually open my hands
and to discover that I am not what I own,
but what you want to give me # …

...Henry Nouwen…

Brian Holden

By this outline of the history of Knowledge you manage to reach the same conclusions to which T S Eliot arrived by examining the power war of twelfth century England between Church and Throne, in his play ‘Murder in the Cathedral’.

Eliot was then as close to his end as you, and, scared that a vindictive god might be around, had a bob each way on his existence.

Mister, relax, no god is there.

If a God exists, he can last only as long as Man lasts, which cannot be another 10.000 years.