To Menu

Share Your Comments With The Cosmos
And Us Earthlings

The convenient comments box has been abused by spammers so I removed it.
Please feel free to send me an email message with your comments
which I will insert on this page. See To Contact Vasilios Gardiakos

Please share your comments about pi, philosophy, music art, this site with all intelligent life terrestrial and extraterrestrial
Go ahead and send me your comments

Comments - Page 2
To Page 1  To Page 3
To Page 4


My Comments about Comments on this Page


 As you read the critiques on this page you will see that my thesis has been met with derision by MarkCC and his blog, Joe Fredette and the three Reddit blogs. Their vicious attack on me tells more about their character than about their mastery of mathematics, logic and the ability to think outside the box. Their critique and comments are plagued with distortions and lack of understanding of the issues. Their mean spirited nature has inhibited their ability to make judgment based on the facts, oddly enough the oddities in this instance.


None of the above mentioned had the common courtesy of emailing to inform me of their online review. They did not have the courage to invite me to participate or to challenge their expert opinion. Their attempt to debunk my thesis would have stood un-challenged if it were not for my chance finding their online condemnation. As you read on you will see that most of their objections were already covered in my website. All one has to do is look beneath the surface.


 If you are one that strictly follows conventional thinking Document A may be difficult to understand. I welcome all comments and especially from those that have studied and thus familiar with my position.


Vas Gardiakos


All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer.




Vas Gardiakos responds to:

Numeric Pareidolia and God in Π by Mark C. Chu-Carroll


It seems Mark C. Chu-Carroll aka MarkCC is first a showman then a scientist. Though he does not look like Don Rickles his personality nevertheless reminds me of him. While I was reading his article I heard Rickle’s obnoxious voice while he was expounding his position.


MarkCC has a fan club that he must entertain and so he does it without restraint. I don’t want to be too harsh on him as I agree with much of what he writes about. My objection is primarily how he treats my Proof of the Existence of God.


Apparently MarkCC initially had a negative regard for my Proof of the Existence of God even before he read all the pages on my website and collected the evidence. Then he continued in that path to justify his initial belief. Science does not work this way. I am certain that MarkCC knows the scientific and logical way of discovery. I do not understand why he ignores it here.


In science it is customary to attack the message not "shoot the messenger". Typically one does not want to bother looking and addressing the issues so they attack the messenger. It is easier and the fan club is entertained. I believe from the language MarkCC uses in his Numeric Pareidolia and God in Π that he sees me as an enemy. I do not see him as such but as an opponent, a welcome opponent to test my thesis. Unfortunately not a worthy one.


If MarkCC wants to find fault with my Proof of the Existence of God at least he should try do a systematic and complete job. He blindly stabs here and there and has missed the target. I know he is capable but do not understand why he fails here.


I will keep my replies brief as most of the material is already covered on my website. For those interested in comprehensive information about my proof of the existence of God here are the links covering this topic.

A few other comments related to Document A are scattered throughout the site.



Numeric Pareidolia and God in Π by Mark C. Chu-Carroll

With Running Commentary by Vas Gardiakos


MarkCC: There's one kind of semi-mathematical crackpottery that people frequently send to me, but which i generally don't write about. Given my background, I call it gematria - but it covers a much wider range than what's really technically meant by that term. Another good name for it would be numeric pareidolia. It's been a long time since I've written about this kind of stuff, and someone just sent me a pretty typical example, so what the hell. It revolves around a mess that he put together as an image, which is pretty much a classic example of obsessive silliness.

Vas: Document A falls in your category of wrong ideas or numeric pareidolia” so therefore it must be wrong. Bad reasoning! Your first mistake. All of us make this mistake but a scientist writing a critique should not. I will admit that you are probably right most of the time on other mathematical topics so I will not press this one. It is easy to fall in such a rut and difficult to get out off especially if you are mostly successful while in it.

MarkCC, the showman, the Don Rickles of the Math world, I understand, you would not be entertaining if you did not cover Document A under "obsessive silliness". If you want to be a professional and you are going to attempt to debunk then do it with professionalism. Stay focused on the subject.


MarkCC: The general idea of this kind of silliness is finding some kind of numeric pattern, and convincing yourself that there's some deep, profound truth behind that pattern. There are a couple of typical kinds of this: 1 number/letter correspondence (classical gematria, which uses the fact that the hebrew characters are used both as letters and numbers, so a word can be interepreted as a number, and vice versa), 2 distance coding (like the infamous "torah codes", where you find words "hidden" in a text by picking out characters according to some pattern and using them to form words),

Vas: I included several of these in And Now For The Fun Stuff for your amusement and information but apparently you either were not amused or you missed it.

3 and simple numeric patterning (where you take numbers - generally some sort of constant - and find some sort of pattern supposedly hidden in its digits).


Vas: With your vast experience on the subject please show me who else has done this using a constant without using an alphabet spelling out words or without attaching meaning to numbers (like 666). Please let me know.

MarkCC: Todays crackpottery is the third kind - it's written by a guy who believes that there are mystic secrets

Vas: "Mystic secrets"? Where did you come up with that doozy? If you feel you have right on your side you need not make things up.

MarkCC: encoded into π and the square root of two that were put there by God, and that the existence of those patterns are proof of the existence of God.

Vas: Why twist things? Say it right. There are so many oddities in each of the three constants, pi, √2 and S and the interwoven oddities between them to have been made by chance alone. One may only conclude that a high intelligence namely God, numerated these constants. You read the highlights and other related information so why not state it correctly? If you feel you have right on your side why not be straight with your readers?

Apparently you missed the point. I’ll sum it up but really you should review it before making any more comments. Document A shows how three constants have over 19 oddities. These nineteen plus oddities are interwoven and can only be the result of intelligent numeration. Yes, it could be a coincidence but the odds are too big to be so. If 3.14159... was a number picked out of a hat along with the oddities it would not be a big deal. But this is not the case, 3.14159... happens to equal pi.

I suspect that whether there are five oddities 19 or 40 or even more you would remain indifferent. You wasted everyone’s time when all you needed to have said is that no matter how many oddities are found in the three constants it is insignificant. I already covered this issue on my website so you should have been aware of it.

MarkCC: This little bundle of rubbish - like all of the kinds of things I described above - are examples of pareidolia involving numbers. As I've written about before, we humans are amazingly good at finding patterns. We've got a strong natural talent for looking at things, and finding structures and patterns.

Vas: Yes, patterns can easily be found in nature. I could not have said better myself.

MarkCC: That ability serves us well in many of our ordinary endeavors. The problem with it is that there are apparent patterns in lots of things. In fact, if you look at things mathematically, the odds of any text or constant not containing interesting patterns is effectively nil.

Vas: Perhaps you have pareidoliacaphobia. Think about it, unless you are afraid.

Why include “text” here? Be straight with your readers. You say “constant not containing interesting patterns is effectively nil”. You obviously cannot count to 19 and beyond. You are a bright guy. I have read some of your work. Why not think before you comment here?

I love patterns. Look at my art on my website. See: You don’t hear me saying these patterns or any other have any significance? Yes, I see patterns and oddities all over but only in pi, √2 and S due to their quality and quantity make them significant. The quality refers to the simplicity of the oddities and quantity refers to the 19+ oddities and the how they are interwoven.

If or when I become an omnipotent or an extremely powerful deity and create a universe among the many silly things that I will do is to numerate a few constants starting with pi with simple artful oddities. I hope that some one in a civilized planet will spot my silly mathematical oddities and so will know that I exist. I would hope that he will attempt to inform the world that my silly mathematical oddities are real and so realize that God exists.

MarkCC: If you're willing to consider all sorts of patterns, then you can find patterns in absolutely everything.

Vas: Thanks for backing me up on this point. Patterns are easy to find in numbers. Are you going to attempt to debunk my Proof of the Existence of God or make true but irrelevant statements?


MarkCC: The question that you need to ask is whether or not the pattern is simple the result of our ability to find patterns in noise, or whether it's something deliberate.

Vas: Good point! Now you are catching on. Individually each oddity is not relevant as they are fairly easily found in mathematics. So thanks for confirming my position. Finding 19+ oddities is a different story. Agree?


MarkCC: These numeric games are an example of that. Stare at any number, and set of numbers, or any numeric coding of a text.

Vas: If you are going to discuss Document A why bring this up? "Numeric coding of a text" is nonsense for several reasons not worth discussing here. You must see the difference between constants and number and "numeric coding of text". If you do not, let me know and I will explain. But I suspect you know the difference so why not be straight with your readers?

MarkCC: If you try hard enough and long enough, then you will find some interesting patterns.

Vas: If it is so then show me 19+ oddities in each random number. But really the test should be the first random number to simulate the one pi. Does this make sense? Or should one be allowed to include all the ten digit numbers? I did not find the pi oddities by reviewing all the constants. I saw the Pythagorean 3_4_5 triplet right at the start of pi and proceeded to find more oddities as time went by.

One may look at numbers in close proximity to pi by using a variation of this formula: Π = 4/1 - 4/3 + 4/5 - 4/7 + 4/9 - 4/11. An example of one: Π = 4/1 - 4/5 + 4/3- 4/9+ 4/7 - 4/13. Then search for oddities. When you find that all contain 19+ oddities artfully intertwined please let me know.

I admit that my claim of the proof of the existence of God sounds incredible. Sherlock Holmes once put it that if you eliminate everything that is impossible, what you are left with is the truth, no matter how strange it may be. Yes, my proof of the existence of God is strange. If I am wrong it will not be due to any of your comments in your Numeric Pareidolia and God in Π.

Looked at probabilistically, the chances of finding a large sequence of numbers or letters where we can't find any pattern is vanishingly small.

Vas: Leave the letters and text out. Review my website and you will see there are no letters in the oddities. But I bet you knew that.

By "large sequence" explain yourself. I suspect you mean over fifty digits, over one hundred digits or even larger? You knew that Document A only involves the starting ten digits of pi. You are so sure of yourself so why not provide a few or better yet many examples with 19+ oddities at the start of other constants to prove your point and bury my position?

MarkCC: So given a pattern, we need to ask, is this pattern just the result of randomness? Just because you found an apparent pattern doesn't mean that it's deliberate or meaningful. In fact, it probably isn't.

Vas: Single patterns are easily found in all numbers. I did not find an “apparent pattern”. I found 19+ oddities. Why ignore this fact?  Why not bring this to the attention of your readers? Your “apparent pattern doesn’t mean that it's deliberate or meaningful” is true for a single “pattern”. You are making a statement confirming my position. Again I will repeat it’s not one oddity but the 19+.

MarkCC: If you really want to find out if it's real, there are ways of using Bayesian analysis to work out the probability of a pattern like that occuring at random. But even there, you need to be very careful. It's incredibly easy to subconsciously set up the priors in your analysis to make your pattern appear real.

Vas: Or to appear non-real when they are real. The priors can skew the results towards the positive or negative. It is obvious that you have no intent in giving a fair review.

So the 19+ oddities are not real? Review them here:

MarkCC: Even professional statisticians have been known to foul that up when they believe that they've found something interesting.

Vas: You are special! You will not been fooled!

MarkCC: Anyway, with that long-winded introduction out of the way, on to today's silliness! This is a supposed proof of the existence of God, demonstrated by patterns in numbers.

Vas: No. Why make things up? …Existence of God, demonstrated by many oddities found in pi, √2 and S. I am repeating myself. Did you not read all the pertinent pages on my website?

MarkCC: Our intrepid author claims that he's finding patterns in three numbers.

Vas: Why leave out he interwoven oddities? It’s mentioned on several pages on my website. This is pertinent to my position so why ignore it?

MarkCC: Personally, I'd argue that he's really using two numbers, and that his third isn't really disinct.

The three numbers are Π, the square root of two, and a constant that he calls S, which is the square root of Π divided by two. I don't think that it's fair to consider S to be an independent constant: it's derived from Π, so I'd claim that anything in S is really just deeply hidden in Π.

Vas: Good point. It’s amazing no one else had previously mentioned this. On the other hand there are too many oddities connecting S to pi and √2 to be ignored.

MarkCC: This argument is really pretty shallow, even as this sort of silliness goes. Most of his number games are played with only the first ten base-ten digits of each constant - and looks no further.

Vas: If you had not read it while studying the site pages you must have been able to figure this out why only 10 digits, on your own. The answer is here: the second question from the top. You are making me do a lot of work needlessly if only you had read all the pertinent pages on my website.

MarkCC: He plays games with those digits, and believes that he's finding deep, profound patterns that could only have been placed there by deliberate actions of a deity.

Vas: I cover this issue here so you should have been commenting on this. See the last question here: The reason I covered these issues is so that I would not need to repeat them.

MarkCC: Before getting to that, I have to point out how quickly he goes off the rails. His first statement is:

Throughout the many centuries pi (π) has been thought to be a random number. With the advent of computers which excel in mathematical analysis this concept has been reinforced.

Π isn't random. No one who understands what "random" means would say that. In fact, Π is very much not random. It's a highly compressible number: there's a simple algorithm for computing it, which means that by definition, it's not random. Π = 4/1 - 4/3 + 4/5 - 4/7 + 4/9 - 4/11. How much less random can you really get?

Vas: When examining pi in the depths it resembles a random succession of numbers. Pi looks like a randomly chosen sequence of numbers with no repeating patterns. You are right here and thanks for bring it to my attention. Unfortunately this hardly helps your position.

MarkCC: Anyway, after that awful start, he goes downhill, by finding trivial patterns in π. He manages to demonstrate quite a number of the classic errors in this process.

A typical example:

1) Pi (pi = 3.141592653...) starts with 3_4_5 which is the smallest Pythagorean Triplet possible forming the Pythagorean triangle. This triplet, 3_4_5 can be recognized as the representation of the Pythagorean Theorem. Also in pi the sequence 1_ _2_ _3. In √2 early the sequence1_2_3 and 4_ _3_ _2.

This is what passes for profundity in this guy's mind: if you skip every other digit in the first five digits of Π, you'll get 3, 4, and 5. If you look at the square root of two, and you skip pairs of digits, you can find 1, 2, 3 and 4, 3, 2.

This is just meaningless.

Vas: It seems you would look at each brush stroke at George Seurat’s "A Sunday in the Park on the Island of La Grande Jatte" and proclaim it meaningless. Yes, I believe one should study the brush stokes but it makes more sense to sit back enjoy the beauty of the whole painting. From a music perspective listen to the notes but enjoy the music. Each oddity in itself may be “trivial”. The totality of the oddities in pi, √2 and S is what makes Document A significant. I am surprised you missed this point which is covered on the explanation pages on my website.

You say “if you skip every other digit” as if I am mad. Sorry for being sarcastic here but I do not recall any mathematics commandment that thou shalt not skip numbers. Even numbers skip odds and odd numbers skip the even. Very elementary. Let me also remind you, in number theory in the prime numbers sequence all the numbers that are not prime but are composite are skipped. From the remark you made about skipping let me show you an example just to make sure you understand: _2 3_5_ 7___11_13___17_19… Mr. Prime “Skippy” Number ignores a lot more numbers than I do. How about the skipping in the Fibonacci sequence? Was Professor Fibonacci “Skip To My Lou” Sequence mad? If "Skippy" and “Skip To My Lou” can skip numbers to expose their numbers of interest why can't I? Is there a rule or mathematical law that forbids me from exercising my mathematics license? Maybe you are mad at me for skipping numbers to make a point? No forget it. Skip that!

You call this skipping “just meaningless”? The skipping exposes the Pythagorean triplet in the same manner as does skipping the composite numbers exposes the prime numbers. Furthermore the 3_4_5 is right at the start of pi where it is very visible to perhaps get attention? It got my attention! Why does my 3_4_5 skipping bother you so much? You just can’t understand it? I don’t make things up I just point at what I see.

Let me remind you that I am not looking at telephone numbers, social security numbers, checking account numbers, lotto numbers and pointing at the oddities. I am not discussing oddities that may be found at the start of a random number but oddities found in pi, a universal constant. You're a bright guy and am confident that you understand the difference.

MarkCC: He managed to find some really trivial patterns. But they're just eyeball patterns - that is, there's no reason why skipping pairs of digits starting from the second base-10 digit should produce something odd.

Vas: If by trivial you mean simple, yes the simpler the better so that they are more easily found. Another consideration, there are limits to simplicity but complexity has no bounds. The boundless complexity can allow one to make oddities at will whereas searching for simple oddities one is restricted by the few available candidates. So now you understand why I look for simple oddities, from the simplest which is counting, addition and so on.

Call them “eyeball patterns” or whatever you wish. Open your eyes and mind. It is what it is. Semantics do not advance your position.

You forget this is not math used for building a high-rise or designing a circuit board. I did not receive a message from God telling me to check out pi and how to go about doing so. It is because of a chance recognition of the 3_4_5 in pi and later the 1_1_2 in √2 that got me started looking for other oddities. I do not possess a God given road map. I have to make the rules as I go along. How else can one approach this examination in the oddities in pi, √2 and S? There is no manual on how to proceed. The nearest to rules that I have to offer would be the definitions of oddities which you may have already seen at

If all numbers have oddities such as I found in pi, √2 and S then my effort has been in vain. So come up with examples similar to Document A or a proof that all numbers have 19+ oddities such as I found in pi, √2 and S.

MarkCC: And if I'm allowed to look at the leading sequence of almost any irrational number, I can find a similar pattern.

Vas: Yes, you are allowed. So look and find them and 18+ more and show how they are interwoven with √2 and S. If you have a hunch about finding similar patterns in the leading sequence of any irrational number, great! With your mathematical expertise this should be rather easy.

MarkCC: For example, in the square root of 31, the 2nd through fourth digits are 567. In the square root of 311, using the pattern of take one, skip 2, the in the leading section, I find 1, 3, 9 - powers of the first digit of 311!

Vas: I did not manufacture numbers to find oddities, primarily using the visible digits of the constants. Did you miss my definition of oddities?

You knew your example doesn’t make sense so why include it? See this very interesting 331 oddity which is totally useless in proving the existence of God. You may have seen the 331 oddity at: Further down from the above link is the definition of oddity as it relates to this website.

MarkCC: Moving on to slightly more interesting patterns, another of his profound discoveries is, if you separate the leading digits into pairs, two of the first three pairs in Π are used in equations that are relatively good at generating small primes. Yep. Two of the first three base-10 digit pairs happen to be used in equations that are probabilistically good at finding small primes. Wow! I'm impressed, aren't you?

Vas: I suspect both Euler and Ulam were "impressed" with their discovery of the formula that generates prime numbers. I was certainly "impressed". I think the world of these two giants in mathematics. To stand on the shoulder of these giants I too can see far but somehow you prefer to dismiss their accomplishments. Read the rest of it at and if you are not "impressed" then read “Question: Does the Document A offer proof or is it faith?” at the bottom of

MarkCC: A great example of where a bit of Bayesian analysis could have easily showed him how trivial a pattern is comes in his example number 6:

6) Pi = 3.14159265358979323... It is very odd that a group of eight small different contiguous primes: 3, 14159, 2, 653, 5, 89, 7, 9323 are right at the start of pi. Many and possibly infinite small (numbers with five or fewer digits) and large (greater than five digits) different contiguous primes may exist after "9323". It will be interesting to see how many digits the average contiguous prime has. Perhaps more interesting may be to find how scarce are groups consisting of eight small contiguous primes of which none of the prime numbers are duplicated.

This is a case where even a moment of thought should have shown him how stupid this one is. Take a set of irrational numbers with roughly uniform digit distributions. Now, you're allowed to choose any length sequences of digits, without any reason behind the lengths. What's the probability of finding primes in the leading sequence? It's not a trivial analysis - but if you take an hour (which is a lot less than this guy spent on this nonsense), and work it all out, you can find the probability of that occurring. An admittedly sloppy back of the envelope calculation gives me a rough estimate that 1 in 5 will contain a sequence of primes varying between 1 and 4 digits in the first 10. And Π isn't one of them! To make that work, he needs a 5 digit prime.

Vas: I did not follow everything you wrote. Your comment nevertheless seemed interesting. For a list of contiguous primes in pi see: It seems that I am correct about the contiguous primes in pi, however I am not sure if this properly addresses your comment. In any case perhaps I should remove number six from the list? Document A is a work in progress though un-changed since at least December 2005. Find evidence against it and if you can leave your bias behind find evidence that supports my position.

Keep in mind in Bayesian analysis the bias due to initial beliefs that one holds before any evidence is ever collected will skew the results. Though not using any Bayesian analysis it is evident that this is what you are doing here. Your initial belief has not allowed you to read all the pertinent information on my Proof of the Existence of God because you may find something that contradicts your beliefs and God forbid (!?)  even worst it is contrary to conventional wisdom. Sorry, everything does not fit neatly into your mental box. Step outside once in a while.

MarkCC: Another one - in the sequence for Π, starting at digit 7, you find 2653. In the sequence for the square root of 2, starting at digit 6, you find 3562. Oooh, look, Π and the square root of two contain 4-digit mirrored sequences, occurring at different positions! That one would only take a 5 minute Bayesian computation to show that it's not an unlikely phenomena.

Vas: In your haste to condemn my thesis you failed to notice that both 2653 and the mirror 3526 start at the seventh digit. Why would I mention it otherwise? Look at Document A You may have overlooked 2653-3526 but there is a place alignment in all the oddities where symmetry is relevant. You failed to mention the very interesting 2653-3562 oddity box at E3. Granted you cannot cover every detail but if you going knock the 2653-3562 mirroring at least it should get a mention.

MarkCC: He goes on - and his patterns start getting even more silly:

10) √2 starts with the Fibonacci sequence 1_1_2_3 in which 11, 23 and 1123 are primes. Also note: √2 = 1 .4 1 4 2 1 3 5 6 2 3 7 3... Fibonacci sequence: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13... In √2 the Fibonacci sequence is included: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8(6+2), 13(3+7+3). Very odd that seven numbers of the Fibonacci sequence are found at the start of the square root of 2.

So... If you take the square root of two, start by skipping every other character, then after the first three pairs, stop skipping, and adding arbitrarily sized groups of digits together you can get first seven members of the fibonacci sequence.

This is supposed to be profound, deep truths hidden in the numbers. God deliberately created the universe so that when represented using base-ten digits, the first seven numbers in the fibonacci sequence are hidden as the first, third, fifth, seventh+eighth, and ninth+tenth+evelenth digits of the square root of two. And of course, the "pattern" stops there.

Vas: Correct. "God deliberately" numerated pi with the oddities including the one you mention above. I do not know why the Fibonacci sequence stops at 13. It seems if it stopped elsewhere you would still be complaining "And of course, the 'pattern' stops there." It would be interesting to know why God does what He does but this discussion is outside the scope of my thesis.

Have I pushed the limits in this oddity? Yes. How else would one approach this but to push things to the limit? If one would take another number in an effort to show that all numbers contain oddities in quantity and quality then they would have to push the oddities to the limit to optimize the result to compare. The aim being to show the maximum amount of oddities and the depth of each oddity. Otherwise why attempt to do this?

If this bothers you that much I can remove the last two digits of the Fibonacci sequence. The oddity becomes slightly less important.

MarkCC: Of course, our brilliant author has anticipated my objections. From his main page, he has a link to another page, "Your questions answered by Vas"."

Vas: I anticipated many of your objections. Perhaps I missed some. You make it sound as if it is a bad thing! If I had not done so you would have accused me of being shortsighted. Not sure why you are making an issue of this. It seems you prefer to shoot the messenger rather than have an honest review of the message.

Question: If you are clever enough you can find oddities in all numbers. What do you have to say about that?

Perhaps I am not so clever. I have tried several random numbers and have only limited success in finding oddities. One could successfully write countless unique equations to fit every constant or random number and call it an oddity. It is difficult however to find oddities using only the basics such as prime numbers, Fibonacci sequence and the Pythagorean triplet. No equations or algorithms are used in Document A. What makes it even more odd and interesting is that pi, the square root of two and S have several interwoven oddities. There are also two interesting blocks, one at E-3 and the other at E-4 (see alphanumeric locators on the sides of Document A).

If you are correct all numbers let’s say from 000000001 to 999999999 should have oddities similar to pi. Why does 000000001 and 999999999 lack oddities which include Fibonacci, geometric and prime numbers and the like which are easily found in the first nine digits of pi?

You are welcome to try your luck at finding oddities in random numbers. See random number generator: (enter 10 and 9). Good luck. Let me know how you did.

Yes, I anticipated your objection to this and other points but did not anticipate that you would avoid answering my question. So what is your answer?

Why avoid commenting that the oddities are comprised of prime numbers, Fibonacci sequence and the Pythagorean triplet. Simple math. How about commenting about the blocks at E-3 and E-5.

Did you try it? As you say why “waste your time”. Is this how you feel? Granted it is less time consuming to knock my Proof of the Existence of God than to really dig into it and give it a proper and fair review. 

MarkCC: Well... First, as I showed above, I spent about thirty seconds eyeballing the leading digits of the square roots of 31 and 311 - and in both cases, I was able to find "interesting" oddities. If I were to spend several months obsessing over those numbers, I'm pretty sure I could come up with a list at least as compelling as his.

Vas: Then do it! Talk is cheap! Yes, add more oddities to 31. But if you going to do anything with 31 do A31. Why not mention my prediction about 31? All good thesis as the saying goes need a prediction so when realized it will bolster the position. See: [Steve Homewood on March 7, 2009 solved the A31 problem. To be fair-minded this happened after MarkCC had made these comments.]

I have only searched and found simple oddities. Why? Perhaps God created the oddities simple so they would be easy to spot. Anything more complex may be overlooked. But of course I am guessing here but my hunch on the other hand may have some merit. There may be some more complex oddities in pi but I have not looked for them.

MarkCC: I also find his claim that "no equations or algorithms are used" hysterically funny. Skipping every other digit is an algorithm. He explicitly talks about the role of the numbers 41 and 59 in equations that probabilistically generate likely primes. His entire argument consists of random eyeball patterns, trivial algorithms, and silly equations.

Vas: Thanks, I will correct my “algorithm” error. What I meant to say was simple algorithm (as opposed to complicated). But you are right! I should have been more specific.

Yes my thesis consists of “eyeball patterns”, algorithms, equations and all that you see in Document A. They are what they are and they are there. Call them "silly" if you want but that will not make them disappear. I would agree however with your "random" regarding “eyeball patterns” as after finding the Pythagorean triplet I searched for oddities in a hit or miss basis which can be construed as random. In trying to find 19+ oddities in other numbers to show that this is typical of all numbers I suspect one would use a similar method of discovery.

Keep in mind that early on after finding a few oddities I was obliged to ask the "could it be" question. Though I answered in the negative I still had the curiosity to continue. I found more oddities until I could only come to one conclusion. If I had not found additional oddities then I certainly would not have drafted Document A and hence this review would not be taking place.

MarkCC: One last thing, and then I'll stop picking on this idiot.

In general, this kind of numeric pareidolia is Π is silly. But if you want to find messages from God encoded in constants, you should at least pick constants that are manipulable by a deity.

Vas: You know that God cannot numerate pi and you know which constants that He can numerate? MarkCC you are brilliant may be even a genius to have discovered such knowledge. You make big statements but where is the beef? If you have done any research on which "constants that are manipulable by a deity" I would love to check it out.

When I say God numerated pi at least I offer the evidence. I show the evidence that three constants have so many oddities that it can only mean that they were numerated by a high intelligence and thus prove His existence. I covered this already at the bottom of

I should not be so hard on you on this issue. I sense that you are open to the idea that a deity can use a constant other than pi for their own purpose to do whatever. So their is hope for you.

MarkCC: One of the interesting things about Π is that it isn't a constant of our universe; it's an inescapable constant. It's also a number that doesn't really exist in our universe. Try as much as you want - you can never find anything in this universe which reifies Π. There's no perfect circle that you can measure to find a perfect value of Π. Π is an idea, defined by a axiomatic system - and given that axiomatic system, its value is a fixed and unchangeable result of that axiomatic system.

Vas: Perhaps this is why God chose pi? Just guessing here for His reasoning.

MarkCC: If you imagine euclidean plane geometry, you have to have this specific value for Π. You can't have a different value for Π in a plane. If you were to use a measured Π, that might be interesting - because it would vary from the ideal Π in a way that measured the curvature of the universe, which is something that a creator deity could change. But you can't change the fundamental, mathematical Π - because that's the product of the axiomatic system called Euclidean geometry. You could make an argument that God created us in a way where we'd naturally devise Euclidean geometry; but he can't have chosen the digits of Π in that system.

Vas: You are persistent. Not only do you know that God exists but what He can and what He cannot do. I am impressed and so is the world and we will wait for your proof. Since you know that God exists why bother reviewing my Proof of the Existence of God and not send me a link to the details of how you acquired so much knowledge about Him? All (or maybe just a few) of the readers here will be waiting for your proof. Really! I will include the link to your proof here. >

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are really saying that if there is a God even though He can create time and space and sentience etc. is still not powerful enough that He can numerate pi as He pleases (nor would He even if He could?). I however say that God can numerate pi with oddities so that we can know that He exists. In fact God has artfully numerated pi with oddities for that purpose and Documents A illustrates the evidence.

MarkCC: If you want to waste your time on searching for messages from a Creator encoded in its Creation,

Vas: Why go on a tangent? I did not spend my time searching “for messages from a Creator encoded in its Creation”. Why make things up? I explained how I got interested in pi. Perhaps you missed this.

MarkCC: you should at least try looking at something that is a real part of that creation.

Vas: Pi is not part of creation? Semantics? If not then prove that pi is not part of creation. You are prone to making big statements without offering any evidence. 

MarkCC: The ratio of masses of the primitive particles, the curvature of space, the strengths of the basic forces, Planck's number, etc.

Vas: Perhaps one can find evidence of God’s existence in the areas you pointed out. You forget that initially I was not looking to prove the existence of God. Why would I? I was an Atheist. I explain how I got interested to dissect pi. Apparently you missed this.

MarkCC: Things that are conceivably variable between different universes, and that therefore say something about what your deity created.

Vas: Why go on a tangent again? Why not stay focused? If you are going to try to debunk my proof of the existence of God shouldn’t you use hard science rather than speculation about "different universes"?

You missed the short list of what can strengthen or weaken the proposition that God numerated pi near the bottom of Contrary to what you may believe you did very little to weaken my position. To be more direct if a PhD like yourself can only say this much about my Proof of the Existence of God, I must be on solid ground.

Vas conclusion: There really few issues here. Are the 19+ oddities there? If you can’t see them then there is no hope for you. On the other hand you see them but you say they exist in all ten digit numbers then show me! Granted some of the oddities may be pushing the limits, but as I see it do not exceed them.


If you had read all the pertinent information you may have had better luck to refute my hypothesis. I point out how to go about doing so but you have not done so. I would have preferred a tougher review attacking the issues not going off on a tangent. Your comments were very weak to do any debunking. Your failed attempt indirectly strengthens my position. Judging from the your blog comments you entertained your audience but accomplished little else.



Vas Responds to

Some of the Forum Comments to the Article:
Numeric Pareidolia and God in Π -
by MarkCC
All the comments below were made in July and August 2008


Vas: First acknowledge my comments about base of 10 to show that you read the pertinent pages of my website then disagree all you want. Don’t you think that is fair?

As for “the universe,” as you say the “abstract notion of numbers (if it even exist) is independent of the base system.” You may be right. I assume God knew this and so He used human conventions. Yes I am doing some guessing and following some hunches. How else would one attempt to do what I am trying to do, that is to negotiate uncharted terrain? I assume nature has no vested interest to create oddities so the oddities are either a chance occurrence or the work of intelligent numeration. Intelligent numeration is the more likely choice since the number 3.14159... happens to be pi.

We may send a message to space so that other possible civilizations would get our message acknowledging out existence and technological level. Since we do not possess divine knowledge of their base numbering system we could send a binary of constants or known sequences. It is likely that you and others already know all this but I want to be certain that my position is clear. We can send pi out, 110010010000111111011010. We can recognize pi whether the decimal is visible or not. Hopefully the other races if there are others would know that the decimal is missing as there is no agreed method for expressing it. They would use the start of pi rather than let’s say staring at the position 100 or anything beyond. Only the start of pi, prime numbers and Fibonacci sequence would be used as using a number well beyond the start of an infinite sequence may not be easily recognized for what it is.

Vas: First acknowledge my comments about God and omnipotence then disagree all you want. Don’t you think that is fair? You are writing as if I ignored the issue.

God can't make Π be 3” You are right because you say you are right? Your fan club is very kind to you, not to question your authority about your knowledge of God's limitations or His omnipotence.

Vas: First acknowledge my comments about pi in different base notation and show that you read the website and then disagree all you want. Don’t you think that is fair?

John Fouhy
Vas: “I'm sure you can find patterns in a lot of random numbers too :-)” If you read my website you would have seen that I offer the opportunity for you to try. You are smart enough to at least qualify “a lot” as opposed “to all” as some other master mathematicians have decreed. 

Anna Nelson
Vas: It would have been funnier if it said 3.141592653589donotlistentomarcc7932384626433832795028841. Perhaps you missed my humor at

Vas: Interesting about mysticism. Why not read my website and then comment.

Barry Leiba
You commented on:
4) Pi starts with the prime number 31 which is also a Mersenne Prime. The cube root of 31=3.141380652 which is within .00657% of pi.

31 is also a pi forward prime.

Perhaps I should remove “The cube root of 31=3.141380652 which is within .00657% of pi.” from the list?

Vas: The 1-1-2 diagram is not a lie. A half intelligent mathematician will automatically presume that the 2 is √2. After all the equation is √2 = 1.414213562… Both the Pythagorean triplet and the √2 are presented as triangles. I already had established an interwoven relationship with pi so the comparison was easy to spot. I am in an area where the rules are being developed concurrently as the oddities are discovered. You can however disagree with me using it as an oddity.

user unknown
If God numerated pi we should have the 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 *sequence at the start of pi . Agreed it would mean nothing other than to make one take notice of it. I have repeatedly stated that single oddities are meaningless as they are easily found.

Since this sequence is missing it proves that God did not numerate pi? In other words since I did not find the invisible cherries** and I presume there are many such cherries, I cannot claim that God numerated pi. I point to what God did to pi not what He avoided doing. I cannot point to an oddity that does not exist.

Regarding the "+", "-", "^" and "/" is a valid remark. The simpler the math the better. I am more likely to use the "+" and the "-" than other symbols. As I pointed out earlier  the simpler the better as there are limits to simplicity but complexity has no bounds. No, God did not put the any of these symbols in the constants but any mathematician can elevate themselves to a vantage point to understand though granted not agree.

You cannot destroy this thesis by knocking down one oddity. Yes, some oddities are more interesting than others but they are there just the same. 

* Dare to skip over the odd  numbers?
Cherries here relates to a later interesting post.

If this is all that the brightest minds of this forum have to offer then I may be on to something. I suspect most of you commented without first reading the information on my website. This bothers me because you may have found better arguments against my proof of the existence of God.

What you see on Document A exists, it is real. You may disagree that I call them oddities. Call them whatever but you cannot ignore them unless you can show that all ten digit constants have oddities in kind. In addition three numbers must have interwoven oddities. Why not read the pertinent pages.

You have failed to comment on the main thesis that there are many oddities. The oddities are there whether you see them or not. They are there! You cannot say that they are not there and then turn around and claim that all ten digit numbers have an equal amount of oddities. And if you claim that all numbers contain an equal quality and quantity of oddities than produce them.

For those interested in comprehensive information about my Proof of the Existence of God here are the links covering this topic.
A few other comments related to Document A are scattered throughout the site. 




Vas Gardiakos responds to:

Numerology for Jesus by Joe Fredette (video)


Apparently Joe forgot to send me tickets to the world premiere to the Numerology for Jesus video! Just from the title alone I knew he had not read much of the Document A highlights and related info. There is no mention of Jesus on my website. So why did he include Jesus in the title? Next, Numerology is included in my website as an example so people like Joe can understand the difference between it and math. But he never bothered to read it. Semantics will not help his position. It is a failed diversion from the issues.


Apparently his atheism does not allow him to even look at the evidence that support the existence of God. This is not true of logic oriented and open minded atheists. He said this cannot be so why bother to read what Vas Gardiakos has to say. He assumed that he can say whatever he wants to debunk Vas’s Proof of the Existence of God and his fellow atheists would not question anything he says.


I believe he suffers from the same tunnel vision as MarkCC. He sees something that looks to be untrue and therefore it is untrue. Without reading the pertinent material he proceeds blindly poking around at the details completely missing the overall picture. If he wants to discredit my Proof of the Existence of God then he should attempt to do it systematically. Since he believes he is in the right then he should do it honestly. First, one should read all the material on my website. Become acquainted with the issues and then agree or disagree with my Proof of the Existence of God. I welcome a rigorous debate on the issues.


Below is his Numerology for Jesus video transcribed and I will comment as the video rolls.


Numerology for Jesus
Joe Fredette (transcribed)

With Running Commentary by Vas Gardiakos


Vas: Why mislead your readers with the title Numerology for Jesus?


Joe: Hi YouTubes, Joe Fredette here as usual. I was just floating around the Internet, I frequent a sight called Reddit an excellent news aggregator and a social news website and I happen to subscribe to the Atheism subsection and was delighted to find probably the first case of mass woo I have ever seen and I realize that there’s probably a fair bit of math woo floating around the world but if it was not for po’s law, God damn, I would have thought this was a joke.  This is really not a joke, I am going to post a link on the info, but if you look at this a picture with some math on it, well if you dare call it math,


Vas: Math covers a lot of ground which includes from the simplest, counting to adding and subtracting and multiplication. Why would you say it is not math? I suspect in your definition of math you exclude everything in Document A as being math. Why start with such a biased and incorrect statement?


Joe: I will put that as the video text, but it is the most fantastically interesting and incredibly stupid thing I have ever seen.


Vas: E=MC ² is meaningless unless you know the meaning of the components and then read the explanation. The brightest mathematician will not know the meaning of this famous equation without some earlier exposure or some further study.


Joe: Basically what it is a picture as you can see that purports to be the proof of the existence of God, which is interesting certainly and what it really is well it is numerology,


Vas: Apparently you do not know the meaning of numerology. For examples of numerology see:  


Let me ask you: 1/7 = 0.142857142857142857142857142857… Correct? Do you see the repeating 142857? Is this numerology? I know you will say numerology because you implied so in the video. Nothing in Document A is numerology. Prime numbers, Fibonacci sequence are numerology? Perhaps you should review Math 101 or better yet Numerology 101.


Joe: and in numerology we see a lot it is not really a popular pseudoscience anymore.


Vas: How does the popularity or lack of it help your position?


Joe: But effectively numerology is saying that numbers impart some special meaning


Vas: So you know the meaning of numerology. There is no meaning to the numbers in Document A in a way that 666 has a meaning to some students of the Bible. But if you read the pertinent pages related to Document A you would already know this.


Joe: in the sense that they are magical things and so there are a couple of things I want to talk about just momentarily about this particular picture. First of all, mathematical proof for God is not the kind of proof you want and I will tell you why. Mathematical objects are not real. They are abstract descriptions of things. There is no such thing as number.


Vas: You claim to have privileged information that the existence of God cannot be proved with mathematics because “Mathematical objects are not real”. Do you have a proof for this or did you just make this up as you went along to entertain your audience?


To quote Rolf Landauer "Information is not a disembodied abstract entity; it is always tied to a physical representation" I suppose this means information which includes "mathematical objects" is real. It is really not important who is right or wrong here but if this is relevant to my proof of the existence of God. It is not!

I would say everything that exists is real. Then you will ask define real. I would follow with exists. So it is semantics and circular arguments. Waste of time here. The only issue is if my Proof of the Existence of God is supported by the evidence in Document A and the related information.


Joe: If we did not come up with the concept of one, it would not exist and you can confirm this by realizing that we could have named the number four to be our number one and we have counted anything that was a one as a quarter, right? So if we were to replace right now the number four with the number one everywhere we would just have to divide everything by four, and everything would still work.


Vas: I certainly would not want to do that. If the ones were replaced by fours and fours with ones, pi would equal 3.414592653... If so, I would not even had thought of starting to work on Document A. If you read the info on the Proof of the Existence of God on my website you would understand why.


You are saying that all one’s to be four’s and all four’s to be one’s than this will follow:  1/4 = 4/1. Since you believe it is the same, give me $4 and will give you a quarter. Yes, let’s test your theory. Or, maybe not as the $ are real but ones and fours being numbers “are not real”.


If on the other hand you mean that the value of four remains but it looks like the number one, why bother to mention this? This is so elementary you couldn't possibly have meant this. They do  not even bother to teach this to first graders. Did you outdo yourself here?


Apparently your fan club is very loyal to you for not calling you on this mathematical error. It seems that everyone here believes that you are right and anything that contradicts you is blatantly wrong. Perhaps there is a “blue" code of silence in this forum? You are preaching (sorry) to the choir (sorry for my choice of words) so why would anyone dispute anything you say or challenge your authority. Perhaps your fours and ones suggestion was a momentary lapse in judgment so I will drop it here.


Joe: So the numbers are not real they are just descriptions of how many of something there is and similarly a mathematical object like a group or a triangle or any of those things from geometry or math aren’t real. They are just descriptions of a structure that we can put data into and describe


Vas: It is an interesting description of numbers but I suspect most people realize this and can only assume God knows this as well. So why go on a tangent?


Joe: things with so when you purport to have a mathematical proof of the existence of God his effectively proving that God doesn’t exist.


Vas: So my math which is not math cannot prove that God exists but can prove that He doesn’t exist. Wow, I should get an award for proving that God does not exist. Perhaps a Nobel prize in Mathematics. Ooops, bad news, there is not Noble prize for mathematics. Ok the Fields Medal. No, too late. How about the Abel Prize? Oh well! Really, any prize will do. An Oscar? I want to thank the academy…


Joe: Which I know seems counter intuitive but he doesn’t exist in the sense that he wants to. Humm so let me just dissect this picture for a moment and try to explain what you are seeing. You are seeing three well two fundamental constants and something else


Vas: Don’t recognize the something else? If you read the pertinent info you would know. That "something else" is 1/2 times the square root of pi. It is gamma(3/2), and is sometimes also called (1/2)! the factorial of 1/2. Herein "S" is used for "side" for the sake of convenience. This isn't common mathematical knowledge so I can understand why you were unaware of it.


Joe: one is pi and he has the square root of two and he has S which he refers to as side and I am not really sure what that is, it’s just a magic number he came up with.


Vas: Apparently things you cannot understand you attribute to magic. A very childish view.


Thanks for giving credit for coming up with gamma(3/2), however I cannot take credit for it.


Joe: And really this is all what this is, it’s all magic. You will notice that when he tries to add things in some kind of


Vas: Let me help you, the “things” you are talking about are numbers.


Joe: in some kind of semi mathematical rigorous up way he really just pick a bunch of things and adding to get 41 and then he is adding more stuff together


Vas: The “bunch of things” and “stuff” you refer to are also numbers. If you look more closely the 41 total is common to all three of the constants. So “woopy ding” you are going to say and then laugh. Did you? You are becoming very predictable.


Joe: And can’t help myself but laugh. It’s just that funny. None of this is math and to call it math is an insult it really is and in part amused and in part offended that anyone would think that they are doing math.


Vas: 3+4=7, 2+5=7, 1+6=7. This is not math? Yes, this is very basic math. Math that you believe in not math is funny to you? Your credibility is on the line as a mathematician. Every-“thing” on Document A is math. I can just see the surprise on your face. You are very predictable.


This is definitely math you do not do because you cannot think outside the box. Apparently you cannot understand that in Document A the math is not applied in a typical manner that math used in structural engineering or for accounting or physics. Mathematics is so elastic that it has no bounds. But you probably know this already.


I would like to know what rule I broke that would make you say that this is not math. Look at Document A and list all the mathematical laws and rules that I violated and thus qualify for non-math. Really make a list! Really!


Joe: I am a math student. I consider myself a mathematician and in a lot of ways I am deeply and utterly offended that anyone would think that this is what we do.


Vas: Ok, where did I accuse you of doing this kind of work? Chill out! The math in Document A and the explanation can be easily understood by anyone who attended high school math class. This includes you. It does not take a mathematician to understand it nor to try to explain it. You are correct, mathematicians do just about everything else but try to prove the existence of God. This category is reserved for this outlier and perhaps a couple of others.


Joe: In part I want to say this is nothing like what we do. I mean everybody watching this is probably taken high school math and high school geometry and you did proofs in high school geometry or at least you did real math in high school geometry. You looked at shapes and you tried to show that certain properties hold for those shapes. This isn’t a proof this isn’t logic this isn’t geometry or anything. It’s nonsense. There are a bunch of numbers that he is looking at and find amusing and thinks he is seeing some kind of pattern in there but the fact is pi and the square root of two are infinitely long numbers. You can pretty much find whatever pattern you want if you go out far enough.


Vas: 2+2=4 and if you add one to each of the two’s you get six. So you see I am right. I am surprised that you did not know this. You were not aware of this very simple formula or you would have mentioned it. This is what you are doing here, making true statements out of context as if I am ignorant of the facts. This is not proper discussion etiquette. Your ego trip accomplishes nothing and wastes everyone’s time. Why not read all the pertinent material and then critique to your heart’s desire. Be honest with your audience, they deserve it. See:    


May I suggest that you think before you talk. Why not consider why only the first ten digits are used. I have covered this so if you want to be fair first acknowledge what I say about this issue and then disagree all you want. Why not be honest with your audience?


Joe: Similarly S is a completely made up number

Vas: Would you like to repeat that? Would one half pi also be completely made up number?


Joe: so not only can you find any pattern you want you can make any pattern


Vas: So now I am accused that I can “find any pattern” and “make any pattern” I want. Let’s put it to the test. Make a list of the patterns you want me to make and I will then attempt to make or find them in the start of pi, √2 and S. I am sure I will fail you but I will try. The oddities I found in the three constant are there and that is the only reason I was able to find them. If they are not there how do you expect me to find them? I will try. The more difficult your list the better. Really send me the list. Really!


Joe: you want and he I don’t fully understand what he is trying to do here.


Vas: All you had to do is check the following links that were available to all and you would know what I was “trying to do here”.

A few other comments related to Document A are scattered throughout the site.


There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”


Joe: but a okay he does highlight


Vas: How relevant is highlighting to my thesis? Is this supposed to be a compliment? Ok, a misplaced compliment is better than nothing.


Joe: the evidence for the existence of God in this manner. His pi


Vas: I though you said this is not math. Pi = 3.14156… This is not math according to you. So why continue the commentary?


Joe: starts with three underscore meaning any other number 4 underscore five which is the smallest Pythagorean triplet which can be recognized as the representation of the Pythagorean theorem. First of all how? 3_4_5 is three numbers. You could think of a million things 3_4_5 represents.


Vas: You claim 3_4_5 can represent a "million things"? If you are as smart as you sound then produce the "million things" list. Really! Back up your words.

Ask your math and geometry buddies in a geometrical sense what is the mostly likely meaning of 3_4_5. Ask how many saw 3_4_5 as two primes and a composite and who saw it as the Pythagorean triplet. Ask! Really!


Joe: 3_4_5  is well its two primes and a composite that could represent, well its two primes there is another prime in there and a composite, well the composite is the product of the first prime with itself, that a fantastic revelation and far more interesting than the fact that it represents the Pythagorean theorem which it really doesn’t,  3_4_5 could be anything


Vas: I can’t believe you said this. Let’s try this very simple example: 9_8_7_6_5_4. Yes, if you let your mind wonder it could be ... but really what is it? Ask any sixth grader.


Joe: Like I mentioned numbers aren’t real things and you can call them whatever you want. saw 3_4_5 doesn’t have to be the representation of the Pythagorean smallest triplet. In pi 31, 41 and 59 are primes. Fine. There are a lot of primes in fact there are an infinite amount of primes, you can find a lot of them. I can tell you that 67 is a prime too and that appears in pi somewhere I am sure.


Vas: 71 is also prime and "appears in pi somewhere I am sure". What does finding random prime numbers in the infinite pi have to do with the proof of the existence of God. Nothing! You are all over the map. You are lost. Stop and ask for directions!


You missed the point that 31, 41 and 59 are primes and are at the start of pi, 3.14159... So you see I did not just pick any primes. I just pointed at the primes that are at the start of pi and called it an oddity.


I welcome a hard critique but your comments are so sophomoric. You remind me of the comedian Sam Kinison. I suggest you read my response to Numeric Pareidolia and God in Π above. Both you and MarkCC made similar statements so it would be senseless to repeat them here. Both of you, Sam Kinison and Don Rickles besides your obnoxious voices you share the same mentality one to a lesser degree than the other.


Joe: So there you go. 41 + n squared + n and 59 + 4n squared + 4n are two of the most productive formulas known for yielding prime numbers. Has 31 been overlooked? I don’t think so. He is obviously referencing Euler's formula.

If you read the Expanded Highlights available for all to study, you would know that I was referring to, Euler's and Ulam’s formulas.

He found that a convenient polynomial that gives you 41 primes and the other one will give you something I think around 50 in fact it gives you exactly 59 primes or 58.


Vas: I thought you said you are a mathematician. You really don’t’ have any idea what I am referring to here. Really, 41, 50, 59 or 58 primes? The answer is neither. All you had to do is read the Expanded Highlights and you would have found the answer.


Joe: And actually they are not the most productive formulas in fact we have a formula with 26 variables that will give you every prime if you give it enough numbers.


Vas: I suspect you are a smart guy so why not show it. There are many formulas for generating prime numbers. Other than the ones I mention none help nor detract from my proof of the existence of God. So why bring up the "26 variables" formula? Do you want show off? I prefer that you attempt to debunk my Proof of the Existence of God.

Joe: It only produces primes or negative results, so that just false and it’s not relevant either. Step three more of the same 11,13 and 17 just primes where they pop up. There are a lot of primes you are going to do that. Pi starts with a Mersenne prime. Fine. The square root is almost pi that’s fine too. A lot of things are almost pi. The square root of ten is almost pi. Apparently the cube root of 31 is almost pi.


Vas: Why not guess why I mention 31. Think really hard. Figure it out then agree or disagree all you want. I am sure you are bright enough to figure this out.


Joe: In fact the square root of ten is a better approximate for pi I think, just if memory serves.


Vas: No, the cube root of 31 is a closer approximation of pi than the square root of 10.


Joe: Pi starts with 31 41 59 yada yada they are both prime woopy ding.


Vas: “yada yada” and “woopy ding”? Who are you trying to impress?

"Pi starts 31 41 59", are three prime numbers. There is more to this so why stop here? I suspect you did not continue because you did not read any further.


Joe: I can think of bigger primes

Vas: Let me see if I can top you here. Let’s have a contest who can think of the largest prime. This has nothing to do with the subject at hand, so why do you mention it? Show me where I am trying to come up with large primes and have failed to do so. Show me how big primes have anything to do with my proof of the existence of God.


Joe: that are in pi I can think of smaller primes that are in pi. Pi is a long list of numbers has the following smallest contiguous different primes. Fine. That is wonderful. I don’t see how this is all relevant.


Vas: The reason you can’t see how this "is all relevant" is because you have no idea of the content of my thesis. You can’t disagree with me because you do not know my position. No, my position is not where you are leading your audience to believe that it's a prime that God exists. No, it is not “here are some primes in pi so therefore God exists”. Read all the pertinent material and then criticize all you want without going on a tangent.


Joe: Starting with the first digits they are all prime numbers, woopy ding, what the big deal about primes.


Vas: “woopy ding” again? If you are trying to impress me with your vocabulary it isn’t’ working. Obviously you have no idea why I point out the primes and some of the other oddities because you did not bother to read the information available to everyone.


Joe: They are important, sure, but this isn’t evidence, it’s stupid, so yea I don’t see what he means that this is proof of the existence of God this is just a bunch of prime numbers.


Vas: So a “bunch of primes” is math. Are you now admitting that this is math? That there is a “bunch” is the central point of my Proof of the Existence of God. There are so many oddities, more than nineteen in pi that it must have been numerated by a very sophisticated entity namely God or if this bothers you call him whatever, SIB for Super Intelligent Being. Certainly you are not aware of the 19+ oddities because you never bothered to read the information provided for everyone to see.


Joe:  I can show you tons of prime numbers.


Vas: Big deal! So can I, but I don’t brag about it. Now how relevant to my proof of the existence of God is your ability or anyone’s ability to be able to “show a ton of primes”? The answer is none! So why mention it? Are you trying to show off again?


Joe: It is called the Sieve of Eratosthenes or the Sieve of Atkin or the Miller-Rabin primality test. I can build more primes than you can think of


Vas: (sing along) No you can't. Yes I can! I can do anything better than you! Joe, I’m very proud of you. So “woopy ding” you are going to say and then laugh. Did you? You are becoming very predictable!

So you are implying that prime sieves somehow prove the existence of God. I do not see how. 


Joe: and I can do it with the expansion of pi if you want.


Vas: I'm impressed at your math skills but how is this relevant to my proof of the existence of God? 


Joe: There were thousands of things that are even better evidence if you are going to call this evidence for God.


Vas: Can you back up your statement about the evidence for God? Let me see your complete "thousands of things" list that includes better evidence for the existence of God. Don't include "what a beautiful sunset so God exists" and the like.


Joe: How about formula e^(i*pi)+1=0 that’s a fantastic formula and you know what, I would call that better evidence than this.


Vas: Certainly e^(i*pi)+1=0 is a "fantastic formula" but explain to me how it proves the existence of God.


Joe: Neither of them are evidence don’t get me wrong,


Vas: Ok, it's not evidence! Sorry, got ahead of you here.


Joe: but I would be far more impressed by e^(i*pi)+1=0 which ties together something like fifteen basic mathematical principles from addition to the constants e, i and pi of one and zero units of multiplication, addition and exponential are the same thing. This is a much better example. Really this is just stupid.


Vas: No it is not really stupid, but e^(i*pi)+1=0 is a poor candidate to attempt to prove the existence of God. You explanation of why it may me proof of the existence of God needs more work.


Joe: So enjoy the dumb, I am sure you’ll get a kick out of it. See youse guys later.


Vas conclusion: This could have been an interesting review of my Proof of the Existence of God if only you read the pertinent material. Instead you made a lame attempt aimed to entertain people that embrace your rhetoric and will not be critical of you. I would have liked to have received criticism of substance rather than childish fluff.



Vas Responds to

Comments Posted on the Atheists Section Concerning the Proof of the Existence of God by Vas Gardiakos

The three threads that I am responding to below were made in 2008. See:



Vas: “hacked” is not a bad word for what God did to the three constants found on Document A. A better word and the one I use is numerated the three constants but you did not know this because you figured that you know all the answers so why bother to read my Proof of the Existence of God highlights and related information. It is only fair to first acknowledge my position then agree or disagree all you want.



Vas: Another one that should have read my Proof of the Existence of God highlights and related information. Perhaps you should think before you write. I comment on what I See 

pi = 3.14159 31, 41 and 59 are prime numbers. We both agree here. Wow!!!

“But what about 314, and 159? Nope divisible by 2 and 3.” Nope, 314 and 159 isn't prime and that is why I did not mention it.


The sky is blue so I may mention it. The sky is not a purplish pink or other weird color so I will not mention that “the sky is not a purplish pink”. Do you understand how this works? This is “cherry picking”.


I suspect that you will call the prime number hunters cherry pickers for only picking prime numbers? What would be the sense of occasionally including composite numbers to avoid being accused of picking cherries?


It seems that the Pi cherry tree on top of the hill has the most cherries. I tried to pick as many oddities as I could see. Some are so obvious that they fell into my hands. I looked at a few of the other cherry trees and found very few cherries. If I was not “cherry picking” my list of things that aren’t would be so long that not even you would bother reading it. In any case what would be gained by ignoring the cherries and listing everything that isn’t an oddity? So “cherry picking” is the only way to make my point. Picking non-cherries even if it was possible that they existed would make no sense as they have no flavor. Now you can cherry pick other constants at the opening digits and cherry pick to see if this see a common phenomena.


Following through on this analogy it is very odd that the pi cherry tree, the √2 apple tree and the S orange trees have roots connecting them. So not only am I “cherry picking” but apple and orange picking too. In addition I x-rayed the ground to see how the roots are connected.


What is your problem with cherry’s anyway? Cherries are very nutritious! This would have been an unnecessary response if you only read the information available to all. Acknowledge my position then attempt to debunk it all you want. Would you say this is fair?



Vas: The base 8 and other base argument has been answered on my website but here it is again: 

You are right the pi oddities are absent from the base of eight. In addition to the base of eight the pi oddities are also very likely absent from most of the other infinite base notations other than ten. My guess is that God prefers the base of ten and this may be the reason we have ten digits on our hands. One day someone may prove that it is impossible to have simple oddities in all of the infinite base notations. Perhaps even God cannot perform the impossible, the inclusion of over nineteen oddities in all of the infinite base notations other than ten. 


Vas: Apparently you read my Proof of the Existence of God information. Yes, apparently God purposefully numerated the constants. He selected a few constants that He would numerate in such way so that we would know that He exists. It may be that God likes to play with numbers. Pure speculation here on my part. There are other countless ways that God could make his existence known to us but why He picked this method among possible others would only be guesswork.



Vas: The three numerology examples were there for a laugh. Some people just don’t have a sense of humor. Oh well! For a laugh see:



Vas: You know that there are other universes? Is it a fact? How many? Where are they? How do you know so much? If you are going to play the part of a big shot and make big statements in an attempt to debunk my thesis you must back up your words. At least I offer the evidence for my hypothesis.



Vas: Glad you mentioned my artwork. I took “trippy background” as a compliment. Want to see more of my art? 



Vas: If you read my Proof of the Existence of God highlights and related information you would know why I used only the start of the constants. If you know that it is incredibly easy to look at a series and pick out a pattern then there is place on my website to do just that. See


Vas Conclusion:

I have seen several articles that claim to prove the existence of God. The few that I examined closely failed to do that. So now I generally do not bother to study such claims. At best I may read the first paragraph and maybe look at a graph. So I understand why many people reluctant to study my Document A and read the pertinent information. What I do not understand, why one would make their ignorance of my Proof of the Existence of God public knowledge. As Mark Twain said “It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.”



Online Forums Covering Document A


Clifford Pickover at Yahoo Groups:
To view the post:


NumberTheory at Yahoo Groups:
To view the post:

Kurzweil discussion forum: Mathematical Proof of God? thread

click on: Mathematical Proof of God?


Heaven Tree - God Refuses To Be Known thread




To Page 1  To Page 3
To Page 4


To Top of Page  To - Home Page

Copyright © 2007 by Vasilios Gardiakos - All rights reserved.